User talk:ChessEric/Archives/2024/August

Alert: PD-NWS Violations

This is an alert being sent to all active editors on the WikiProject of Weather and any editor who has recently editors weather-related articles.

Editors on the Commons have received communication from the National Weather Service that the Template:PD-NWS, which is often used to upload weather-related images, is incorrect. There will be a discussion starting on the Commons Copyright Noticeboard within the next few days to determine how to manage this issue. Under the current PD-NWS copyright template, images on any NWS webpage was considered to be in the public domain unless it had a direct copyright symbol and/or copyright watermark.

One National Weather Service office has confirmed this is not the case. For the next few days, it may be best to not upload any image from an NWS webpage that was not made or taken directly by the National Weather Service themselves. Once the Commons determine how to move forward, editors will recent a new alert. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: You can't be serious... ChessEric 23:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Hurricanehink was in email communication with them. NWS La Crosse stated to them: "An individual who posts a photo on a NOAA website is not placing their photo in the public domain. By posting the image, the copyright owner is giving NOAA permission to use the image on the website" So for your uses, unless the images are already in the public domain (you can find them on other websites or a license allows for it), you will need to check with the owner." My personal guess on what will happen is it will be select NWS offices listed on the PD-NWS template. We know for a fact NWS Norman and NWS Souix Falls put their images into the Public domain based on their own respective copyright guidelines. Basically, for people sending in images, each NWS office sets their own standards. NWS Norman's copyright guidelines does not affect NWS Tulsa for example. That is my guess on how the Commons will handle this, but I do not know. Either way, NWS La Crosse seemed very clear about it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: That sucks. There are many images that are going to be affected by this, including most of the recent images of tornadoes that we have. Now I wish that I hadn't been taken images of event pages and adding them to articles recently.

Also, you made that long reply really fast. XD ChessEric 23:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. The big discussion which led to this had the chance to affect like 200 images. The original big deletion discussion regarded the NWS PD template timeline, since the earliest PD-NWS template found was 2008, "how do we know pre-2008 images are under it". NWS La Crosse's statement came out of left field, since possible every image not from NWS Norman/Souix Falls (maybe a couple others if copyright statements can be found) would be deleted.

Also, you posted it right before I did an set of mass talk page messages, so it was perfect timing for me to reply. XD. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Was this a discussion between just Hurricanehink and NWS La Crosse? ChessEric 23:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but all emails were copied and pasted by Hurricanehink into the big discussion. I doubt there would be any false things posted by them, but technically, those emails are also in the public domain and FOIA requestable if an administrator on the Commons or anyone for that matter wanted to double check. Here is a link to the Commons discussion which started this whole thing (not started by a WX editor), but I will warn you, the discussion is 81,000 bytes long: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Damage from the 1968 Charles City tornado just south of the Cedar River looking north.jpg. You can see how it evolved from a "post-2008 images are 100% safe" to now everything is at risk. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

You know what? I'm honestly getting tired of non-weather project editors coming in and complaining about something they know absolutely nothing about. I'm not saying they can't come and give advice and stuff, but I find the list he made to check for verification of everything absurd. From his standpoint, we will now have to go through every image that the NWS has presented in event pages, the DAT, on Twitter, and every other place to get permission to use them. My question is, "Why?"

Now that I think about it, I encountered this problem before; when I was working on the older tornado articles, I added in images I found from NOAA and the NWS. I don't remember what exactly it was, but I was later told that I didn't give accurate credit, which confused me of course since I was told that NOAA images are free to use. It eventually got sorted out, but the fact that we have to nitpick everything now is, in my opinion, ridiculous. ChessEric 03:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This is absurd. You cannot gatekeep things to people who are likely to agree with you. There is a clear concern over whether images submitted to the NWS are clearly released by their photographers into the public domain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm just giving my opinion, which disagrees with the person who bought up the issue. I'm not gatekeeping anything, so please don't say I am. ChessEric 03:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm honestly getting tired of non-weather project editors coming in and complaining about something they know absolutely nothing about. This isn't giving your opinion. It's saying that you think that "non-weather project editors" shouldn't be allowed to discuss copyright on images related to weather. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

How's that not an opinion? It's me saying that I don't like something. I didn't take any action to stop them from doing so, nor have I not allowed them to do so. In fact, I've welcomed it more often than not. I've just felt that recently, there has been a string of things that I don't agree with. Please don't nitpick my words or try to say I'm saying something that I'm not because you're misunderstanding. ChessEric 04:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

That's the definition of gatekeeping, which you tried to say you weren't doing. Just because you haven't taken explicit action to prevent them from contributing doesn't mean your attitude isn't one of opining that it should be gatekept - and that's a chilling effect that shouldn't be welcome. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, it is an opinion I gave that wasn't directed to anyone at any particular time. If I had specifically said, "This person shouldn't be allowed to comment," and/or made an effort to keep that person/people out, I'd understand, but I'm not doing that. If that was the case, I wouldn't accept new people coming into the project. I don't understand why you're making a big deal of this since I'm not threatening anybody. ChessEric 04:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just an FYI, the DAT is still fine. Anything actually taken by a NOAA employee is still automatically public domain and the DAT is only used by the 122 NWS offices + NSSL. 95%+ of the damage photos we have on Wikipedia are safe. It is more a lot of the actual tornado photos. NWS doesn't take tornado photos (since they are working and issuing the warnings and such), so the only NOAA entity that actually takes tornado photos is NSSL. For example, the 2011 El Reno–Piedmont tornado actual tornado photograph was not taken by a NOAA employee. It is those that are at risk.

(edit conflict) To be honest though, I do not expect much of a change to happen. NWS La Crosse apparently actually emailed something opposite of their own copyright statement and they stated something different than NWS Headquarters. My proposal was to just remove any NWS La Crosse-webpage images that were not taken by NOAA employees. That would remove like 5-10 photos max and make this issue go away. If you want to keep up with it, you can here: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Template:PD-NWS -- Administrator Help ASAP. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: On a separate note, I do find the argument that people don't know that they're entering their photos into public domain when they send them to NOAA funny because we Americans like to say, "We know our rights!" That argument contradicts that! XD ChessEric 04:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: You see, this is why I don't like outsiders. We tried to have a civil discussion and by the end of it, it turned into one person accusing everyone of s*** and bringing up an Arbcom that happened over a year ago. Thankfully, I've grown since then and learned that if I can't come to an agreement with someone, I'll just agree to disagree, but what I can't stand is inflammatory comments that I feel like are meant to hype people up and get them banned. It's true that I made the mistake and I acknowledge that I put the spotlight on this project, but to be reminded of that every single time is infuriating. I'm just going to leave it at that before I go to far. ChessEric 05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Want to help out with the list of schools struck by tornadoes

To take our mind off the debacle earlier, I wanted to let you know about this.

A couple of days ago, I started this article, hoping to be a good spin-off from List of tornado-related deaths at schools, which obviously doesn't get edited much (and hopefully never will again). Right now, I have it F/EF0 to F/EF5, but that may just shrunk to like F/EF2+ depending on the size. There is always a lot of attention regarding when a school is hit by a tornado, especially after 2013 Moore, so the article topic at least is fairly notable. I've already got the F/EF5 list "done" (all necessary tornadoes/schools listed, just info is low) and I started work on the F/EF4 section.

I just wanted to let you know about the article and if you wanted to help out any, feel free too. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Doing this article, I found out the 2013 Moore tornado actually hit four schools. Only the two elementary schools are ever mentioned nowadays, but an entire third school was leveled at high-end EF3 intensity and it isn't ever mentioned by the media. I just found that odd and interesting. Fun fact for the day (night?) I guess. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

That is interesting. I'm busy with college work right now, but if I find anything, I'll add it. ChessEric 05:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

TorStar for you!

		The Tornado Barnstar
		I noticed your contributions to 2011 Lake Martin tornado (which you, very impressively, basically rewrote the entire article) and Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024, and I wanted to thank you for those edits and other constructive edits relating to tornadoes! :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Tornadoes combined with TC articles

Hey there, you mentioned on the Isaias article that merging tornado outbreaks with tropical cyclones don't usually work. Could you check out Hurricane Cindy (2005)? I've been working on that, and intend to take it to FAC at some point, but wanted to get your thoughts on how it handles the tornadoes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

We had tried putting in that table before, but Cyclonebiskit removed it to "avoid undue weight." We don't put tables into the articles because of how large they are and that's why I just summarize them all in the impact paragraphs and put in links to the tables/articles. The table is also outdated and needs to be modernized. ChessEric 00:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll give more feedback another time. ChessEric 00:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

If the outbreak is one of the more notable aspects of a storm, and a table was the most useful way to summarize the information, then I don't think having the table would be undue weight. An impact paragraph is useful if there was a particularly damaging or deadly tornado in the event there was an outbreak, but one not so bad it needed its own article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Those are Cyclonebiskit's words, not mine, but I don't like the idea of cramming a table into a hurricane article. ChessEric 01:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you think it's worth keeping the table then or not? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think a table should go in the article. That's why we list pages and separate articles for things like that. ChessEric 23:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I took out the tables, and I have nominated Cindy for featured article candidacy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Your welcome! Good Luck! ChessEric 17:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit summary

I noticed you edited the article Tornado outbreak of April 25–28, 2024 with the summary of "I don't think the injury count is that high.", while raising the injury count. Was this just a personal opinion disproven by sources? Not a big deal either way, just thought it was odd. Happy editing! GeorgeMemulous (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@GeorgeMemulous: The number of injuries listed on the list page differs from the count on the outbreak page. That's really about it. ChessEric 16:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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) 03:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: At this point, I'm starting if I can even trust the NWS with the DAT. The photo of the EF0 Rusty Point tornado was submitted to the NWS Anchorage before being put out on their X before being put on the DAT.

The government being secretive and underhanded; sounds like an average Monday. ChessEric 18:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we can still trust PD-DAT. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Heads up

If you see an unfamiliar username start commenting on future discussions. I am in the process of changing my username from WestVirginiaWX to Hurricane Clyde. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

My username has now been changed. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I saw that; thanks for telling me you were going to do that. ChessEric 18:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you read over 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado?

Hey ChessEric. So 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado is currently up at FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado/archive1). So far, it has a non-weather editor support, but only one other editor has actually supported/reviewed the article. The FAC coordinator commented that it is at risk of being archived (i.e. auto-failed) as there isn't but one clear support for it. I just wanted to see if you could take a few minutes and review the article and leave some comments (support, neutral, or oppose) at the FAC? Even if you have questions or think some changes would happen, some sort of review/comment would keep it from being auto-archived and subsequently auto-failed without a formal coordinator review. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I did some work on it just now, but I’m not sure what exactly you want me to do. Would my input of support actually do anything, especially considering that I’ve never made a FA? ChessEric 06:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)