User talk:HurricaneEdgar

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Congrats on all of the hard work getting Meteorological history of Cyclone Freddy to good article status! Thanks for all of the fixes and research. If you intend to take it further, be sure to research for journal articles, and continue fleshing out the article where you can, but I'm happy to call it "good" :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Meteorological history of Cyclone Freddy

The article Meteorological history of Cyclone Freddy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Meteorological history of Cyclone Freddy for comments about the article, and Talk:Meteorological history of Cyclone Freddy/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy

Hey there Edgar, not sure if you're planning on working on Freddy some more, but I wanted to point out a few things ahead of time that need work. I think it's one of the most important storms in recent years, so I am glad to see someone working on the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Maria

Hello Edgar! Just wanted to pass by and say thank you for greatly expanding the draft for Tropical Storm Maria (2024)! I tried my best to, but a lot of the time I was correcting spelling errors as the creator didn't seem to be fluent in English. But again, thank you for your contributions!

Regards, Shmego (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shmego Thank you anyway. I would like to suggest expanding the sections on the preparation and impact of Draft:Typhoon Ampil (2024). Once that's done, I will expand the meteorological history section. But anyway, thank you for expanding the impact of Japan on the storm. HurricaneEdgar 04:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ampil succeeded as well, so thanks again! Shmego (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-NWS Violations Update #1

I am providing members of the WikiProject of Weather along with users who frequently edit weather-related articles an update to the discussions regarding the PD-NWS image copyright template.

For starters, no "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred. All that means is the template is not formally deprecated and is still in use. However, Rlandmann, an administrator on English Wikipedia, has begun an undertaking of reviewing and assessing all images (~1,400) that use the PD-NWS copyright template.

What we know:

Following email communications, the National Weather Service of Sioux Falls has removed their disclaimer, which has been used for the PD-NWS template for decades. This means, as far as the National Weather Service is concerned, the following statement is no longer valid: By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others. Currently, the PD-NWS template links to an archived version of the disclaimer. However, the live version of the disclaimer no longer contains that phrase.
See this deletion discussion for this point's information. NWS Paducah (1) failed to give attribution to a photographer of a tornado photograph, (2) placed the photo into the public domain without the photographer explicitly giving them permission to do so (i.e. the photo is not actually in the public domain), (3) and told users to acknowledge NWS as the source for information on the webpage. Oh, to note, this photographer is a magistrate (i.e. a judge). So, the idea of automatically trusting images without clear attribution on weather.gov are free-to-use is in question.
The Wikimedia Commons has a process known as precautionary principle, where if their is significant doubt that an image is free-to-use, it will be deleted. Note, one PD-NWS file has been deleted under the precautionary principle. The closing administrator remarks for the deletion discussion were: "Per the precautionary principle, there is "significant doubt" about the public domain status of this file (4x keep + nominator, 5x delete), so I will delete it."
Several photographs/images using the PD-NWS are currently mid-deletion discussion, all for various reasonings.
As of this message, 250 PD-NWS images have been checked out of the ~1,400.
The photograph of the 1974 Xenia tornado (File:Xenia tornado.jpg) was found to not be in the public domain. It is still free-to-use, but under a CC 2.0 license, which requires attribution. From April 2009 to August 2024, Wikipedia/Wikimedia was incorrectly (and by definition, illegally) using the photograph, as it was marked incorrectly as a public domain photograph.

Solutions:
As stated earlier, there is no "formal" rulings, so no "formal" changes have been made. However, there is a general consensus between editors on things which are safe to do:

Images made directly by NWS employees can be uploaded and used under the new PD-USGov-NWS-employee template (Usage: {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}} ). This is what a large number of PD-NWS templated images are being switched to.
Images from the NOAA Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT) can be uploaded and used under the PD-DAT template (Usage: {{PD-DAT}} ). A large number of images are also being switched to this template.

For now, you are still welcome to upload images under the PD-NWS template. However, if possible it is recommended using the two templates above. I will send out another update when new information is found or new "rulings" have been made. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]