User talk:WeatherWriter/Archive 7

Your GA nomination of Battle of Kherson

The article Battle of Kherson you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Battle of Kherson for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Your edit on 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel

Hello, you recently added an edit where you made a claim that 3 Jordanians were killed, with a citation by twitter accout "Visegrád 24". However, on the article for that account, it says that they post misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war, and thus it is not a reliable or good source to use and that claim has no source to back it up. Please remove it as I have already done so once. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no discussion about their reliability. They have also been cited by reliable sources such as the Times of Israel and CNBC (per their Wikipedia article even). Please open an RSN to determine their reliability status. I will not be removing it as there is enough in their Wikipedia article to where one can justify the potential for them being a reliable source. Also see this NBC News article for further info on that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

While you may be right, Twitter should not be used in this case as a source as it is, so I think you should wait until a reliable non-social media source makes the claim. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

To note, social media sources are sometimes used and considered reliable sources. Example is BNO News, which is a Wikipedia reliable source that is 95% social media based. So again, without a RSN to determine reliability, usage by other RS is a decent indication it may be a "generally reliable" source, which doesn't require it to be perfectly reliable 100% of the time. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Given that your edit has now been reverted twice, what is your purpose in adding it a third time? Why are you so dead-set on having this in the article? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It is a source used by others & has not been deemed unreliable on Wikipedia. That simple. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

🙂 Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a tweet, it's a tweet making an exceptional claim and it's all that and more from an outlet Wikipedia defines as a nogoodnik. Not looking good. Plus, it makes the Jordanian Air Force look negligent; err on the side of not pissing off an air force, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If you're changing a stat and removing a citation, like in 1974 Super Outbreak, it's not self-explanatory -- it needs an edit summary for other editors to fully understand the change. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for not leaving an edit summary. The tornado project reference was outdated as the book was more recent. The book says the updated total. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikisource

I'm considering writing a sort article for the Signpost about contributing to (English) Wikisource, which I've been doing on and off since this January. Since you're another Wikipedian who recently joined that project, I wondered if you would like to say a few words about your experiences getting started on Wikisource (learning curve, pros, cons, anything really). No worries if you don't want to. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure Cremastra, I would love to!

Getting started on Wikisource was so much different than getting started on any other Wikimedia project. Actually, I struggled to even really learn how to get started. Unlike Wikipedia, there was no “learn to edit” style of buttons to click. They just have a “Help” button, which then takes you to a very short beginners guide. In terms of getting started, it probably has one of the worst layouts for new editors of any project. After that, I discovered you actually need gadgets on, especially for new editors. Every pages has a “header” for basic information. However, only going into your preferences and turning on specific gadgets allow it to be automatically generated. So my first ever page was actually a weird copy/paste from an existing page, rather than a guided creation. Besides getting started, the process is fairly simple and it actually easier than creating English Wikipedia articles. As an editor who contributes almost entirely into weather-related articles, it is a huge perk to be able to have Wikisource articles. For any U.S.-weather event, the primary source is always the United States government, specifically the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Since everything U.S. government publishes is in the public domain, it can also be added to Wikisource. So now, weather-related articles can have links for readers to a Wikisource-version of the primary U.S. government sources for tornadoes, hurricanes, winter storms, floods, ect…

To conclude, Wikisource is a major perk for weather-related articles on Wikipedia and I would love for every editor on weather-related articles to use it, but honestly, the guide to newcomers needs a major revamp (maybe similar to have Wikimedia Commons’ newcomer process works) before I would personally sent a new editor there. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Hope that works! If you have any other questions for me, let me know! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

CT Eastern Europe or the Balkans

You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TylerBurden (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The People’s University for Palestine

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as The People’s University for Palestine, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Josethewikier (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

And contested. Lol. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Confused About Current Criteria Status

Hey sorry I haven't participated in the discussion as much, I got bogged down with work and life stuff. So anyway, I'm a bit confused about what the current status is for EF2 tornadoes that don't hurt anyone. Are we just doing the "soft" case-by-case approach where we just discuss it when it happens, and reach a consensus for each individual instance? The discussion has become so long-winded and convoluted I can't really make heads or tails of where things currently stand. Can you give me a "dumbed down" summary of what the current agreement is when it comes to no-injury EF2s? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

5+ EF2s for inclusion and then when an editor feels an EF0/EF1/EF2 was “high impact”. High impact can be included by anyone, and then once challenged, it discussed on the talk page.

That is the “dumbed down” version of it. The formal RFC to add both of those to the criteria is ongoing right now, but so far, everyone (so far 8 editors) seems to be in support of both of them with no opposition. If all goes well, May 23, those will be formal criteria to use on articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the info! That all sounds good to me.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Re: FAC

Hi there WeatherWriter, I'm glad to be of assistance in helping you get a featured article.

• Immediately, I notice that the lead is too short.
• You say in the lead that Thomas P. Grazulis was a tornado expert, but you don't say his relationship to the information here. When did he assess these F ratings? In addition, the article reads as if it was told by Grazulis, since that's the first thing that I read after the lead. I would expect a section on meteorological synopsis.

There is 0 meteorological synopsis history on the event as far as I am aware (none from the U.S. Weather Bureau, NOAA, or Grazulis). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• "That said, the National Weather Service (NWS) office in Birmingham, Alabama, published a list of tornadoes, which occurred in Alabama, during 1945." - is that true? The website most certainly wasn't in 1945.

The NWS website cited there, which exists in at least 2023/2024, does state those ratings for tornadoes in 1945. I do not know how else to phrase that, so any guidance on phrasing how the NWS (sometime since the Internet has existed) rated those tornadoes back in 1945 on the Fujita scale would be helpful. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Why is there a sub-section for February 12 event, when all of the events were on the same day?

Standard process for tornado articles. We do that in modern-day events as well (Tornado outbreak of March 13–15, 2024 is an example). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• The article is formatted like a list, but it's abstract in how it talks about some of the lesser significant events. Like, you say "The tornado started", "This brief intense tornado struck a cluster", and "The tornado destroyed". I'm being nitpicky here, but you came to me for my advice, and one of my main rules for writing is avoid using the passive voice. You used phrases like "A home was leveled", by what? If you want some variation to saying tornado, you could always say "twister". But you should least say something like "The tornado" did something

I will take a look at the article and see how to remove some of that passive voice. You are right though, I did use a lot of it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• " The U.S. Weather Bureau documented that this long-track tornado killed 40 people and injured 200 others." - did the tornado kill 40 or 11?

They said 40 in a formal publication, then months later, said 11. That phrase is because the original official publication said that. Same idea as when NHC said Ian was Cat 4, then months later, Cat 5. The difference in this case though, is that the "40" was not preliminary, but the actual official release, which was later formally changed months later. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• There should be a source at the bottom of the table for all of the events. Otherwise, where is the source for all of the tornado widths, F ratings, all that.

Just a question, do the sources for the summaries not count as that as the sources citing the tornado summaries are the sources for widths/deaths, ect...? I can certainly do that if you think it would be beneficial, but I am not sure if that would be considered overlinking to others. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Are you sure about the number of railroad cars derailed? I came across this source after a quick Google search.

Wow, you just found a source discrepancy! Grazulis was the source for the number of train cars derailed, but that newspaper article says differently. I will add that information to the article tomorrow and note the difference in sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Speaking of sources, are you sure you've gotten as many sources as possible, and used as much useful information? As I noted earlier, there wasn't a meteorological synopsis.

See note earlier about that.

• "5 miles (8.0 km) " - why do you have 8.0? Your other usage of km doesn't have the .0

I actually have no idea and I have no idea how to fix that. It straight up is "{{convert|5|mi|km}}. Template being weird? Honestly, not sure. If you know how to fix that, please let me know. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• "The tornado started 5 miles (8.0 km) southwest of Montgomery, Alabama and moved northeast, towards Montgomery where it would brush the western edge." - that's three references to the cardinal direction. Maybe split it up a bit and add the time of day here? Also, the material you have in the second paragraph seems more appropriate for the first paragraph, like the length of the tornado path, and width.

Paragraph split was done by a GA reviewer last year when the article was up for GA. I would probably want someone else to mention the paragraph splitting before changing it, only due to the fact it was split to get to GA status. The cardinal direction thing though seems odd now that I think about it. Also there isn't a time of day listed. One thing I can say is this is a tornado from 1945 and the information about it is no where close to what NWS or NHC would produce in 2024 for tornadoes/tropical depressions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• "The tornado leveled two government or U.S. army warehouses." - that seems a bit odd to be the second thing you mention in the section. I would think the first paragraph would be a summary, before getting into the impacts.

GA-reviewer split for that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• "were ripped and tossed about like match boxes" - who said this? You have a random quote in there without attributing it.

There is a citation immediately following the quote. I can add who stated the quote though (Associated Press with no direct author name), however, I am unsure the best way to state it. Maybe this?

"A freight train was also struck, where, according to the Dothan Eagle and Associated Press, 50 cars "were ripped and tossed about like match boxes".[3]"

Any thoughts about the wording for it before I add it to the article? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• For all of the fatalities in Montgomery, you don't really go into much detail about any of them. Were they all in people's houses?

The info about the fatalities was in this part: After hitting Montgomery, the tornado struck Chisholm, Alabama, where it caused catastrophic damage. Thirty homes were completely swept away in Chisholm. All the fatalities from this tornado occurred in 15 homes within a 20-block radius. That is all the information about those exact deaths as well from Grazulis, U.S. Weather Bureau, and Rich Thomas.

• You describe the tornado as "devastating" twice in the lead, but don't provide much context. Are tornadoes are in Alabama? Had Montgomery ever been hit by a tornado? Was this event the deadliest in its history?
• I see a lot here that could be potentially useful. Rich Thomas, the author, is also cited below, and in this random source
• This site says Montgomery County tornado deaths are rare, and that this event was indeed Montgomery County's deadliest, as well as other deadly events since then.

Added! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

So that's a lot right off the bat. I wonder if the FAC was perhaps a bit premature, but I don't want to tell you what not to do. Let me know if you have questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: some information has been added based on your comments! I really thank you so much for the comments and I know you were being nit-picky on purpose. FAC's involve the nit-picky details. Hopefully I was able to explain some of them and I also left a few questions. Since your comment was more in a bullet-list format, I hope you don't mind that I replied individually to them under the bullet point. I really do thank you for the comments. One other thing: Would you care if I leave a transclude-link to this talk page discussion over on the FAC page? Before your reply, someone else had already commented on the FAC page, so trancluding this discussion over there would probably be useful. But, I wanted to ask before just doing it. Again, thank you for the comments and maybe (just maybe) I can get it to FA-status. (fingers crossed). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Done! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2024 Sulphur tornado photograph.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2024 Sulphur tornado photograph.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Please Don't Add This Photo To Sulphur

The photo that keeps getting added to the Sulphur section is NOT a confirmed photo of the Sulphur tornado. There actually isn't a single source saying it is from Sulphur, so I don't know where people are getting the idea that it is. The one you posted claims it was taken near the town of Byng, Oklahoma, and yet I found two more instances of the pic posted that same night, claiming to be from Ardmore, Oklahoma (shared below). If it was taken near Byng though, it would mean it is more likely a photo of the Holdenville EF3, as that town is closer to Byng than Sulphur. In any case, this all way too speculative for Wikipedia and we have no way of knowing where this photo was actually taken, and we shouldn't be having this issue to begin with, because we aren't supposed to pull random pics from social media that we cannot 100% verify. We can't just guess and hope we get it right, so stick with pics from the DAT or the NWS. We are going to get misattributed photos and false info published if we aren't more careful. Now if we find proof that this photo is from Sulphur, we can add it back, but for now it is a random unverifiable photo from social media that shouldn't have been added in the first place.

PROOF: 1.) https://twitter.com/dylantbrown/status/1784433337823621608 2.)https://twitter.com/JeffreyMHough1/status/1784555615013990792 3.)https://twitter.com/NeckerZak/status/1784421774563631487

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Well can you speedy deletion request it then? Non-free media guidelines mean the image must be used on an article. Also you are right that it isn't the confirmed EF3 photo, as SW of Byng (per RS media/NWS surveys) had an EF1 and the EF3. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure I'll take care of it now.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12