User talk:EF5
 | In memory of the victims of the September 11 attacks. |
| In memory of the victims of the 2011 Hackleburg tornado. |
 | This user does not mind criticism. Feel free to let them know if they did something wrong. |
| This user is still learning the ropes on how to use Wikipedia, so they may have multiple errors in edits. |
| This user was a bite victim, hence knows the pain of being bitten and WILL NOT bite other users. |
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Speedy deletion nomination of File:2019 Beauregard tornado.png
[edit]
A tag has been placed on File:2019 Beauregard tornado.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.
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. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
User talk page archiving
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, EF5,
Your User talk page says, This user does not mind criticism
so here is some. You seem to archive messages on your User talk page after only 24 hours! This is much too fast. I think you should leave at least a week's worth of messages if not a month's worth up on your User talk page. This would allow editors who left you a message to not have to go into your talk page archives to see what your response was. It is also not advised to add new messages to archived pages so by archiving a discussion you are cutting off possible new comments to it. It also would allow you more time to respond to messages as I can't imagine that you edit 7 days a week. I realize that you might like a blank talk page but I think that the benefit to you and other editors outweighs the cost of having a full User talk page. This is just a suggestion but I hope you consider it. Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Done, thanks for the feedback. I used to have a very slow archiving system, so I guess I went a bit overboard. :) EF5 13:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
PD-Automated
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey EF5. I noticed you put a dashcam video of a fire tornado on your user page under PD-Automated - I really don't think that the license is valid. The description of PD-Automated states "pre-positioned" as in mounted CCTV, but this clearly wasn't. I'll also note that if the PD-Automated license there is valid, then free media for 2024 Elkhorn-Blair tornado and numerous others becomes available as a significant amount of storm chasers use dashcams - but they probably wouldn't be too happy having their footage distributed for free. Just letting you know. The full legal hammer hasn't swung one way or the other for PD-Automated but I can say with some certainty that dashcam likely wouldn't be on the "free" side. Departure– (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's produced by CalFire, so if not PD-automated then PD-CalFire. EF5 23:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Departure–: Based on some discussion I had on the Commons Copyright discussion board a while ago, the PD-Automated tag applies to any pre-positioned camera where the human had no direct intention of captured what was captured. For example, the very much pre-positioned camera by Max Olsen before Hurricane Ian does not qualify under it, despite being a 100% non-human operated, pre-positioned camera, since the intention of it was to capture Hurricane Ian's footage. File:Dash cam footage of the 2024 Lincoln tornado.webm on the other head, despite being a dashcam, would qualify under PD-automated as the intention of the dashcam (actually even confirmed by the RS media it was published by) was for insurance purposes for a company driver. I.e., the dash cam was for potential car insurance fraud incidences. It was not pre-positioned to capture a tornado. The PD-auto is when it involved a non-human operated camera where what was captured was not directly intended. Non-moving CCTV is always PD-automated since anything that happens (tornado, earthquake, robbery) is not the "human intended" capture for it. You might think a store CCTV would be intended to catch robbers and that would be correct. However, that specific robbery was not the intention. That is why Max Olsen's camera doesn't qualify but the dashcam for the Lincoln tornado would. Olsen placed it specifically for the storm surge so the intention was to capture exactly what was captured. I am not sure which file you are talking about, but hopefully this explanation helps. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is a helicopter video of a fire tornado, and I believe that the camera was there for the intention of capturing fire shots, but not this specific fire, so I’m leaning towards pd automated applying here. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
|}
Reversal of artist recon of TST 1925 as lead image
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
People can tell the difference between artwork and photographs, no? TheEditor7499 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Most tornado articles have an image of the tornado itself in the infobox. There are no images known to exist of the Tri-State, so any concept images remain in the body. Departure– (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
2021 Tri-State/1925 Tri-State
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would you be opposed to moving the 1925 page to just "Tri-State tornado"? I know the term "Tri-State tornado" nearly always refers to the 1925 tornado and not the 2021 tornado. I think it feels a bit clunky listing a term of which 90% of the mentions are with a rather unneeded disambiguator. CutlassCiera 17:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's a move request on the Tri-State tornado outbreak page for the exact opposite reason. In my opinion, it isn't the primary topic; we've had over ten Tri-State tornadoes since 1880. EF5 17:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- However many tri-state tornadoes we've had the term "Tri-State" nearly always is used to refer to the 1925 tornado. I would just suggest keeping the tornado's article itself at "Tri-State tornado" and the outbreak at either "Tri-State tornado outbreak" or "Tornado outbreak of March 18, 1925" and then having the Monette-Bootheel-Cookeville at its current title. CutlassCiera 17:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- 1974 Tri-State twister, 1956 Tri-State tornado, among others. EF5 17:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless of the few and far between examples you may find the term "Tri-State tornado" is almost exclusively used to refer to the 1925 tornado. CutlassCiera 02:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not "almost exclusively", but "usually". Agree to disagree, I guess. Hope you had a good Christmas, assuming you celebrate that. :)EF5 02:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- How about "Great Tri-State tornado"? Not much room for confusion there. Hoping to see it as today's featured article for its 100th anniversary. Departure– (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- That could be a good solution. I was actually planning to do what EF5 did and split the article and do some rewriting and GA nominate it but I got sidetracked. Good work so far! CutlassCiera 20:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I started an RM. I never did like that disambiguator when "great" would work just as well. Departure– (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- How about "Great Tri-State tornado"? Not much room for confusion there. Hoping to see it as today's featured article for its 100th anniversary. Departure– (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not "almost exclusively", but "usually". Agree to disagree, I guess. Hope you had a good Christmas, assuming you celebrate that. :)EF5 02:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless of the few and far between examples you may find the term "Tri-State tornado" is almost exclusively used to refer to the 1925 tornado. CutlassCiera 02:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- 1974 Tri-State twister, 1956 Tri-State tornado, among others. EF5 17:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- However many tri-state tornadoes we've had the term "Tri-State" nearly always is used to refer to the 1925 tornado. I would just suggest keeping the tornado's article itself at "Tri-State tornado" and the outbreak at either "Tri-State tornado outbreak" or "Tornado outbreak of March 18, 1925" and then having the Monette-Bootheel-Cookeville at its current title. CutlassCiera 17:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
New page reviewer granted
[edit]
Hi EF5, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.
This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:
- Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
- If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
- If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies
You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Sohom (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Archives
[edit]I hope you realize that your archives seem to still be set to go to User talk:Sir MemeGod/archive. Might suggest updating it. And thank you for following Liz’s suggestion; I’ll admit that the 24 hours was too fast; I have my talk page set to archive after two weeks. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of 1925 Tri-State tornado
[edit]The article 1925 Tri-State tornado you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:1925 Tri-State tornado for comments about the article, and Talk:1925 Tri-State tornado/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 Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Hey EF5. I saw you have the 2007 Greensburg tornado article at FAC right now. Just like on the 1925 Tri-State tornado article, I went ahead and added one of the damage surveys via a PDF into the article. Feel free to move it around. It was done from a Freedom of Information Act request earlier this year, so it literally would not have been previously cited in the article as FEMA made it public for the first time in December 2024. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- @WeatherWriter: Thanks! The big question: Are the images in the report free, and are they located somewhere else in a higher quality? Several images there would be tremendously helpful in the damage section. :) EF5 01:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- Free, Yes since the report was made by FEMA (obviously unless an image says it was taken by someone else besides FEMA…no caption means it is FEMA and it is free). They are not located anywhere else that I am aware of. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- How funny! I just saw a known weather youtuber tweeting about acquiring the tornado damage investigation report from a FOIA. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red January 2025
[edit] 
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 17:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
I was working on this draft and I noticed you also have a userspace draft on this outbreak. I think merging it with my Meteorological synopsis section and a quick aftermath / non-tornadic impact section, it could go into mainspace while it's still ongoing. Thoughts? Cheers! Departure– (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sure! I've... already published mine, ironically moments before you sent this. Did you see that Port Arthur tornado? Holy shit, it was on the ground for over 3 hours! EF5 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did see that, and if it wasn't a family, then it'll probably dethrone that one from the FAC you were working on for sheer duration (not quite length, given the slow speed of today's storms). I'll go ahead and finish up the merge. Departure– (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Danke. I already have a section up for that tornado, as it's likely to get a load of coverage. EF5 00:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Let's wait until the tornado is over, then for maybe a survey. Feels very odd saying that. I've commented that section because it's not at all confirmed that it was a single tornado - not even theorized like the 2021 Quad-State. Not yet, anyway. Departure– (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Departure–: If it was one single tornado, it may have been the official longest OTG tornado in modern world history, going from the first confirmed tornado warning to lift in Louisiana. So weird that this stuff happens in Winter, i'll make a bet that 2025 will be even crazier. But that's for another 2 days. :) EF5 14:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Let's just hope we'll be observing safely from a distance, given what some of these folks are saying, and what some of them are planning on, and hope that this is the year Warn-on-Forecast becomes operational, giving us up to an hour lede time on any severe weather that may or may not happen. This coming year, I plan on working more on March 31, getting the 1967 and 2023 Belvidere tornadoes to FA, and finishing up the rest of my drafts. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Departure–: If it was one single tornado, it may have been the official longest OTG tornado in modern world history, going from the first confirmed tornado warning to lift in Louisiana. So weird that this stuff happens in Winter, i'll make a bet that 2025 will be even crazier. But that's for another 2 days. :) EF5 14:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Let's wait until the tornado is over, then for maybe a survey. Feels very odd saying that. I've commented that section because it's not at all confirmed that it was a single tornado - not even theorized like the 2021 Quad-State. Not yet, anyway. Departure– (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Danke. I already have a section up for that tornado, as it's likely to get a load of coverage. EF5 00:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did see that, and if it wasn't a family, then it'll probably dethrone that one from the FAC you were working on for sheer duration (not quite length, given the slow speed of today's storms). I'll go ahead and finish up the merge. Departure– (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
"Picher deadly tornado" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Picher deadly tornado has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 29 § Picher deadly tornado until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
"Quapauw tornado" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Quapauw tornado has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 29 § Quapauw tornado until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)