User talk:WeatherWriter

Welcome

Welcome

Hello, WeatherWriter, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Help pages, especially for proofreading
• Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource
• Style guide
• Inclusion policy
• Wikisource:For Wikipedians

You may be interested in participating in

• Proofread of the Month
• Monthly Challenge
• Requested texts

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{Collaboration/MC}} to your page for current Wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

• Wikisource:Scriptorium; or
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username if you're logged in (or IP address if you are not) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! Glad to see more fellow Wikipedians getting involved here (I'm quite new to WS myself) Cremastra (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Authors

Please see Help:Author pages#Copyright_tag. Author pages should indicate why the Author's contributions can legally be hosted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

1965 tornado photograph

While I am uncertain about the laws/rules for photographs. A book published between the current public domain year (right now 1928) and the year that this new law took affect (I am guessing it was 1971); the book needed to have its copyright renewed with the government that year or it is in the public domain now.

I am sorry for my lack of looking up the details; my bookmarks are elsewhere and I am somewhat busy. The fuzziness of what I said can be sharpened with 1) the year the copyright needed to be renewed 2) (which would answer for 1)) the link to that book hosted by google that contains the renewals and 3) the knowledge of how photographs fit into this, whether they are in that book or no.

I am thinking that photographs need to be published with that © and a year to be under copyright laws and that one 1) wasn't and 2) probably wasn't renewed when the laws changed.

When they are around, the people at Wikisource:Copyright discussions are very familiar with the laws and that book and where the other information might be; with any luck you did not piss them off too much and they might help.

The tornado photograph was very cool!

A side note: it is my experience here that the people who care about wikipedia are doing so quietly by adding documentation here that is needed for citations here. Some of them are very prolific here and somewhat terse there. Many of those here who have been here for a long while are from the 'pedia and disgusted with it; those being (for example) the previous "Cool Kids" who for sure there is a bunch of new ones there now.

The tweet post seemed very disrespectful. I suggest not reproducing the tweets here and being respectful in what might indeed be one of the finest internet old folks homes around. There are some very smart and experienced (that last being a key even to the internet's "elderly" who are not so old probably) people here and most of them would consider the NOAA posts to be relevant, cool and very welcome here. Which was the reason I suggested that you post them here, as well.

Personally, I kind of like astrology and have adopted it as my favorite of the fuzzy sciences (and disregard psychology or economics). I heard a prediction from a mundane astrologer that with Neptune moving out of Pisces into Aries, that social media is going to all but disappear. Personally, I am holding the door open for that...--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey RaboKarbakian! There was a huge RFC discussion ongoing on the Commons regarding NOAA-based images (see it here), so hundreds of weather-related images have been or are being reassessed. That 1965 tornado photograph on Twin funnels on Palm Sunday (NOAA Photo Library) was actually looked at on the Commons and “confirmed” to be in the public domain: See the discussion here. The main editor reviewing the weather photos, Rlandmann (An EN-Wiki administrator), posted it is in the PD under commons::Template:PD-US-no notice. The only reason the deletion discussion has not closed yet was it was opened by a different editor who has not withdrawn it. On a different note, the NOAA Photo Library is in the public domain as seen in their statement, “Images in the NOAA Digital Library are in the “public domain” and cannot be copyrighted.” WeatherWriter (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh also @RaboKarbakian: I know about the tweets now. I plan to not add any NWS tweets going forward, even though there are a couple which have been cited in peer-reviewed academics and would arguably qualify for Wikisource historical documentation. Anyway, like you said, I don't want to piss off the main editors here. I have nearly 35,000 contributions to various Wikimedia Projects (over 4.5 years of time), editing mostly in the realm of meteorology. That said, I am just a new guy on Wikisource. I wasn't really fighting keeping the tweets too much. Honestly, I was just more or less pissed that asking for help is what led to my edits being audited and several subsequently being proposed for deletion. That is more what caused me to go off, since the new-guy on the block basically got put under a microscope following a help question. Ok, enough of that ranting. I do appreciate the help and advice! I know there are several NOAA things that I can still add. Several of them can be seen here: Category:PD-USGov-NOAA (almost all entirely added/created by myself). I'll probably just restart adding some of the Monthly Weather Review pages and if I need help, I'll just risk the microscope on all my edits again and publicly ask for it. Maybe, with luck, the next time I ask for help, I will actually get help. Well, thanks for the advice! If you have any questions about one of my contributions or creations or just have some comments regarding one of them, don't hesitate to message me! Cheers! WeatherWriter (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Some misunderstandings

Hello. I would like to write a short reaction to your last contribution as WS:Proposed deletions. As it has not much to do with the particular proposed deletions, I decided to write it here.

First misunderstanding is that you take some things as a personal offence although they are not meant so. It could be seen from your first message to me, where you felt deeply offended by the fact that I nominated your work for deletion, and I can read it among the lines in some other contributions at WS:PD too. However, if you think about it, if we really wanted to bite you out of here, we could it in a much quicker way and would not bother with writing various explanations, and I would definitely not write them even after your announcement you are leaving. So believe me, nothing of this kind is not and was not happening.

Another misunderstanding is your conclusion that we do not accept material which has been digitized. We are just quite reluctant to accept purely digital material (and even this has some exceptions, although I personally do not like them). So if you know of any scans of some originally non-digital works, you can surely transcribe them from these scans no matter whether somebody else has digitized them meanwhile. After a short while of searching I came across e. g. National Weather Service forecasting handbook no.1 by the US National Weather Service from 1979 which looks pretty interesting to me. And there are more NWS publications that can be found in HathiTrust.

So, my suggestion is that you take a short break to let things cool down and maybe you will see it from a different perspective in a few days. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Tornado_Warning_issued_by_NWS_Charleston_at_1027AM_EDT_on_April_2,_2024

A little help with the formatting please? Hurricane Clyde (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Never mind @WeatherWriter, I figured it out. Hurricane Clyde (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	This barnstar is for your resilience and good nature on Wikisource. I appreciate your contributions and helpfulness! FPTI (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Weather-related books

Seeing as I'm getting close to finishing Florida's Great Hurricane, are there any other weather-related books I could transcribe? Norbillian (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

True book-wise, I’m not really sure or familiar with what else could be transcribed. That said, I can work on getting more Monthly Weather Review PDFs added to the Commons which can be transcribed. MWR has roughly 100-years worth of material that is in the public domain that has never been transcribed. WeatherWriter (talk) 15:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Norbillian (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter, @Norbillian: The meteorological contributions are much appreciated. You might consider creating a Wikisource:WikiProject Weather, might be nice to keep track of efforts and needs and establish a small subcommunity. :) SnowyCinema (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema: I doubt a WikiProject is needed for a very small amount of texts. The ongoing proposed deletion discussion may eliminate basically any 1970 to 2025 official U.S. weather publications (i.e. whether Storm Data is in scope). If it is in scope, then maybe. If not, then a WikiProject would clog up too much space on Wikisource and frankly, I would only contribute on Monthly Weather Review publications since the modern-day publications would not be in scope. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The Finalized Report on the 2024 Little Yamsay Fire

Hello. I am very sorry, but I do not think that this is in our scope, quite similarly to the previous deletion discussions. I have explained it in more details at WS:Proposed deletions#The Finalized Report on the 2024 Little Yamsay Fire. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

You got to be fucking kidding me. Official U.S. government documents do not qualify for Wikisource's scope? LOL. Yeah, I knew trying Wikisource again in 2025, after my 3-month haitus would be fucked over. Well, I tried. If/when this is deleted, I will never be logging back on to Wikisource since every weather document I seem to type up is "not in scope", despite y'all telling me to help add weather stuff. The cursing was not directed at you, but rather Wikisource as a whole as I have, bluntly, been fucked over and bamboozled (probably the best word) by editors here in October 2024 and now January 2025. WeatherWriter (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I and others gave you a lot of useful advice how to contribute, among others here. This is a collaborative project, which means that things do not have to go as you wish. As a new contributor you should learn how we do things, and not shout at us aggressively that we do it badly and you know better, and if we won't yield you will leave. You do not have to agree, if you consider some rule bad, you can propose a change at a proper place and try to convince others about your point of view, of course. But that is everything up to you and your choice. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It isn't that I don't agree, it is that WS:WWI makes no sense and seems to not ever be the same every time. That first bullet point for "Documentary sources" is for official publications, which is what I added (definition wise) on numerous occasions. Then I come to find out that, in short, government press releases are not actually under Wikisources scope. By definition, Wikisource has made it so statements from the US government are not "official publications". Yes, I got advice before in October 2024 and also from you. However, WWI is not actually the definition of "official publications". That really needs to be changed or reworded better, like really badly needs a rewording to specify press releases may or may not (most likely will not) qualify for it. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That is a point I really do agree with you: WS:WWI definitely needs better wording to be more comprehensible. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Monthly Weather Review

Could you add the index files of the rest of Volume 1 here? Norbillian (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

MLK document

In the note and on the new texts page you spell his middle name Luthur but the actual document uses the correct Luther.

But also, there are two pages that have not been transcribed and show as red links and several pages showing as problematic. My understanding is that new texts should at least be fully proofread. -- Beardo (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Problematic pages are entirely due to circled text that I was not able to get working. Two pages that need transcribed are because I am unaware on how to do a properly formatted table of contents. When I tried, it was a jumbled mess. My thought process was that New Texts would attract the attention of other editors who can fix those problems. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Misspelled name fixed and also items in New Text do not have to be entirely proofread, unless Weird Tales/Volume 6/Issue 2/The Oldest Story in the World (also listed in New Text) is breaking the rules as well. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, Weird Tales is usually a collection of stories, causing some pages being problematic since they are usually from other, non-proofread stories. Norbillian (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

If you have problems, I think it would be better to raise on Scriptorium, rather than hoping that people notice in new texts.

Regarding the Weird Tales story, the problems relate to adverts that were not transcluded, The transcluded story was fully proofread (and noted in the edit summaries of those pages). -- Beardo (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Well in that case, I have removed the item from the new text list. You can expect to see it there soon again. WeatherWriter (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Page 4 just shows as "not proofread" - is there a problem with that ?

Circled text ? Aren't they just notes that somebody has made on the copy - do those notes need to be reflected in the transcribing ? (But I couldn't see where you had mentioned what your problems were - if you have problems that are not obvious, it is a good idea to explain somewhere.) -- Beardo (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beardo — I mentioned it over at Index talk:FBI File 104-10125-10133, Martin Luther King Jr., A Current Analysis.pdf#Problematic pages. Since the circled items were still made pre-publication (public publication that is), I was going to add them and any of the random “X”s in the text were going to be annotated later. I tried messing with Template:Circled text and I could never get it to work properly, so I just marked them problematic. WeatherWriter (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The comments on that talk page weren't there when you posted in new texts last night, were they ? -- Beardo (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

New texts

{{new texts}} is for newly completed texts. It's true it isn't written plainly, but that is implied to mean that all pages should be either without text, proofread or validated.

So, works with pages not created, not proofread or problematic, can not get added to {{new texts}} until they're properly completed (exception has been made if these pages are adverts).

You should wait for completion before adding. Cheers, — Alien  3
3 3 08:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

See also section above. -- Beardo (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)