User talk:Hoguert

Welcome!

Hello, Hoguert, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 2010 Yazoo City tornado

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2010 Yazoo City tornado, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A little note

Hey there Hoguert! While I do like your efforts to create new pages, I would suggest first familiarizing yourself with the formatting, and maybe editing a few tornado-related articles first. A lot of the articles that you have wrote have serious grammatical issues, are lacking in citations, or are improperly formatted. I'm obviously not discouraging you from making articles in the future, but I'd just suggest getting familiar with formatting first.

P.S.: Please don't remove maintenance tags until the issues are fixed (specifically the Washington, Illinois "citation" templates)

Thanks for your effort on Wikipedia, I can tell that you are very passionate, and maybe in the future we can work together on an article! Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i can tell thats a serious issue, I think its due to the fact english isn't my first language or i just suck at writing properly in general Hoguert (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, you're fine! I'd just suggest first editing existing articles for a bit, although I can already see that you are working on the Winterset one. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i mean you can help out if you want Hoguert (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:2023 Wynne-Parkin tornado has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:2023 Wynne-Parkin tornado. Thanks! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2011 Chickasha–Blanchard tornado has been accepted

2011 Chickasha–Blanchard tornado, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GAN attempt for 2013 Washington, Illinois tornado

I noticed you tried to nominate this article for good article status, but put the wrong template in it. Please put {{subst:GAN|subtopic=Earth sciences}} (exactly the way it shows with the "subst") at the top of the talk page in order to put it up for GAN. Thank you. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Hoguert (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-NWS Violations Update #2 (Key To Read Third Section)

I am providing members of the WikiProject of Weather along with users who frequently edit weather-related articles an new update (2nd update) to the discussions regarding the PD-NWS image copyright template.

On the Commons, an RFC discussion is taking place to figure out how to manage the template. No "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred, so nothing has changed. That is not a surprise as the RFC is still ongoing.

What is new?

The entire Template:PD-NWS has been placed inside a "License Review" template, which is viewable via the link aforementioned.
Most of the photographs which were uploaded to the Commons originally under the PD-NWS template (approximately 1,500) have been reviewed. Out of those ~1,500 images, only about 150 are requiring additional looks. Most images have been verified as free-to-use and switched to a respective, valid template.
As of this moment, approximately 50 photos have been nominated for deletion (results pending).
A handful of images have been deleted (either confirmed copyrighted or under the Commons precautionary principle).
One image has been kept following a deletion request under the PD-NWS template.

How to deal with new photos?

Given all of this, you might be wondering how the heck you use weather photos while creating articles? Well, here is what you can do!

If the photo was made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (excluding NWS), You can upload it under the PD-NOAA template via {{PD-NOAA}}.
If the photo was made by the National Weather Service (NOT Third Party), you can upload it using the new PD-NWS-employee template via {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}}.
- If the photo originates on the Damage Assessment Toolkit, you can upload it using the PD-DAT template via {{PD-DAT}}.
If the photo is from a U.S. NEXRAD radar, you can upload it using the PD-NEXRAD template via via {{PD-NEXRAD}}.

What about third-party photos?

In the case of third-party photos...i.e. ones not taken by the National Weather Service themselves...there is an option which was discussed and confirmed to be valid from an English Wikipedia Administrator.

KEY: Third party images of tornadoes & weather-related content can potentially be uploaded via Wikipedia's Non-Free Content Guidelines!
Experiments/testing has been done already! In fact, I bet you couldn't tell the difference, but the tornado photograph used at the top of the 2011 Joplin tornado was already switched to a Non-Free File (NFF)! Check it out: File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg! That photo's description can also be used as a template for future third-party tornado photographs uploaded to Wikipedia...with their respective information replaced.
NFFs can be uploaded to multiple articles as well!
The absolute key aspect of NFFs is that they relate to the article and are not decoration. For example with the Joplin tornado, the photograph: (1) shows the size of the tornado, (2) shows the "wall of darkness", which was described by witnesses, (3) shows a historic, non-repeatable event of the deadliest tornado in modern U.S. history. The exact reasoning does not have to be extremely specific as Wikipedia's NFF guidelines "is one of the most generous in the world" (words of Rlandmann (not pinged), the administrator reviewing all the PD-NWS template images).
Tornado photographs will almost certainly qualify under the NFF guidelines, especially for tornadoes with standalone articles or standalone sections.
NFFs cannot be used when a free-photograph is available, no matter the quality, unless the section is about that specific photograph. For example, the photograph used at the top of the 2013 Moore tornado article is confirmed to be free-to-use, therefore, no NFFs of that tornado can be uploaded on Wikipedia. However, the "Dead Man Walking" photograph could almost certainly be uploaded as an NFF to the 1997 Jarrell tornado article as that photograph is the topic of a section in the article.
NFFs currently on Wikipedia can and should be placed in this category: Category:Non-free pictures of tornadoes.

Update Closing

Hopefully all of that information kept you informed on the Commons copyright discussion process and how you can still create the best articles possible! If you have a question about something mentioned above, reply back and I will do my best to answer it! Also, ping me in the process to ensure I see it! Have a good day! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Fantastic work on 2013 Washington, Illinois tornado! Your contributions to WPW are greatly appreciated. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your closure of Talk:Tornado_outbreak_sequence_of_April_4–7,_2022#Merge_proposal

Could you explain how you get a consensus against merging? If something isn't obvious, you are required to give a bit more explanation when making closures. The votes were evenly split here so there should be an explanation as to how you determined consensus. Noah, BSBA^Talk 16:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well 5 people opposed it and 4 people supported it, unless you're counting the person that made the request as the person who supported it, I thought that since the discussion has been going on for 13 days that it was reasonable for me to end it. Hoguert (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you examine the votes usage of policy or did you simply base your decision on the numbers? The timing of the closure wasn't inappropriate but Im just trying to understand how your closure was determined. Noah, BSBA^Talk 16:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a very active discussion and I thought that it would take awhile until the next person voted whether in favor or opposing the merging, and it seem like, despite how close the votes were, more people didn't want the article to be merged, if I had made a serious mistake then I apologize. Hoguert (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t realize this before but you are an involved user in the discussion and shouldn’t have closed it as a result. The only time involved users may close something is when the result is obvious like nearly everyone supported or opposed. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy and is instead based on strength of argument rather than vote counts. Policy based arguments are thus weighted more than frivolous ones. Noah, BSBA^Talk 13:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know Hoguert (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:DEMOCRACY as to why we don't count votes. :) Sir MemeGod  19:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Since you cast a !vote in the merge discussion of 2022 Pembroke-Black Creek tornado, you are not permitted to also close the discussion. Please request closure from an uninvolved user. 96.57.18.90 (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 2013 Washington, Illinois tornado

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2013 Washington, Illinois tornado you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hoguert (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 2013 Washington, Illinois tornado

The article 2013 Washington, Illinois tornado you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:2013 Washington, Illinois tornado 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 Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 2013 Washington, Illinois, tornado

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2013 Washington, Illinois, tornado you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of 2013 Washington, Illinois, tornado

The article 2013 Washington, Illinois, tornado you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2013 Washington, Illinois, tornado for comments about the article, and Talk:2013 Washington, Illinois, 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 Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Hoguert (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]