On 1 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rainbands, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 4 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Quantitative precipitation forecast, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Congratulations on your sprites (lightning) hook. As shown on the DYK Stats page, the hook drew 18,300 views to the article while it was on DYK. That's the 4th most for the month of February. Top 4 listed below. Keep up the good work! Cbl62 (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On April 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Westerlies, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On April 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wake low, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk13:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay but ive passed the wind article now as i could not see anything wrong with it. Im surprised that the USA uses 2 min but hey you learn something new evrey day :} Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will review "Wake Low" during the next couple of days whilst your away, and once youre back you can have as long as you need to fix it up just leave us a note when youre done :) Jason Rees (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry about the time delay. I have been dealing with problems. But I will get right to your article now. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewing process goes well. I did not know the "rescue" situation there (I thought you wrote the whole thing, and I thought you know the "new" cite templates - one recent FA nomination is enough to learn that, they are indeed scrutinizing every formatting detail). To understand my attitude you had to get into my shoes a month ago when my GA was scrutinized to the bones by a reviewer, who, while understanding the subject, made me rewrite the text to be understood by WP readers and check dubious parts. That is the beauty of the GA process - learning - otherwise it would become a useless routine.
The remaining issues are on the review page (clarifying figure 2 caption, the lead "lee of warm ..", "lake-effect snow"). I strike through what is fixed. At the review page, please try to reply under the comment raised, when possible. I need time to check other parts. Best wishes. Materialscientist (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its pretty hot in my place and I couldn't concentrate much on reading. That is why I wrote in the GAN report that I'm sure I missed something. You'll need an extra pair of fresh eyes before FAC. The article has improved and I've learned some from this GAN meaning the efforts were not wasted. You'll need to read this and that to understand some deletions. I was keen to recover that useful image, but couldn't make time to find its source. Materialscientist (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know... I'll be trying to make a full prose review of the article in the next couple of days. I've been meaning to do that since the start of the candidacy, but deadlines of off-wiki projects came upon and took all of my time... That said, it looks pretty good from a cursory perspective. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)11:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know im just going through wind bit by bit to make sure all the references are properly formatted and all have publishers etc. :) Jason Rees (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem and let me be the first to say congratulations on its promotion to after all of your long hard work. O and a hint on the references - you might find it easier if you go into youre Preferences and click on a section called Gadgets. There is a tool in their which i use called Reftools which you should find easy enough to use. :) Jason Rees (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond about my retirement in a second, but for Gibbs, you just have to keep clicking refresh. It's annoying, and it takes a while, but everything is still there in the site. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been considering leaving for the last year or so, but every time I get started on an article, or visit my watchpage, I get back in the habit of wiki-ing for far too much time than I should. That is the reason why I plan on leaving. I need to start planning my career - weather and Wikipedia was only meant to be a hobby, but it has taken away time from working on music. I love the site, and it's been very good to me, but in high school and early college, it was mainly used as an outlet. I feel bad for the circle of friends on here (yes, I consider them more than just users), but every chapter in life must have a beginning and an end. Rather than leave suddenly without notice, maybe from some petty conflict, I decided to announce it ahead of time. I appreciate your comment on my talk page (and I was surprised about the Ike thing - someone that age should know better!). Maybe someday I will return in some capacity, but that's for another day. If it's any consolation, I'll still be here for a solid six months. Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I've always loved how you strike a balance between your professional work and your edits on here (BTW, great work with the largest hurricanes template). Yea, it's great finding something new about a topic you research. It would be a completely different if I edited music articles, but that boat is long gone (I tried, and I have no interest in music-related articles).
Heh, that person must be my doppelganger. Female cat lover (I'm a male who owns a dog), a Brit (I'm American), but still a composer and piano player. I'll have to keep my eye out for her, make sure she doesn't 1-up me. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the barnstar! I'm just sitting down to complete the rest of the reviews that I claimed earlier today, so I should have the review on your Hurricane Flora article up within a hour or so, and I plan to do spend some more time clearing that section out this weekend. I hadn't realized how bad the whole backlog had gotten in the month or so that I hadn't been reviewing...at least I have lots of cool articles to choose from now :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just help out with the article as and when you can. Yep i can see Sourcing being one of our biggest issues, though i know of a few good sites where we should be able to reference things too. A lsit is attached at the bottom of this page. We may have a problem with getting PAGASA names for 1989 & 1990 as these were not on the old list or on the list you use for the 1980's PTS nor sourced in the articles but we will im sure find a way around that little snag.
Hi, I saw from Malleus's talk page you were wondering why I put the article up for reassessment. The reason is that, although I had made a few edits to it over the last couple of months I was by no means an original editor. Also it's not something I know an awful lot about, although I've learnt quite a bit from the article and references now. I just generally edit anything that interests me where I see problems. During the last reassessment by Malleus someone had added bits in but when I followed some of the references they didn't really support what was being said. I'd left a message about it on the talk page but no-one had responded so I thought it best to go down the reassesment route. I thought this was would be a community thing but when I looked at the rules it said you should put it up yourself first and try to get it fixed that way. That's the first time I've done a reassessment but it certainly worked on this occasion and you fixed it pretty quickly. I'm still a bit confused as to why you think Richard Seager's logic is faulty though. Richerman (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ike has been mentioned as having a diameter in excess of 550 miles, so why is it so low on the list? I think the whole template is flawed and should be deleted. User:VeronicaPR17:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just letting you know that I'm leaving Wikipedia tonight. I want to thank you for the help you've given, both to the project and myself. It's been really great meeting someone like yourself. Until I was 12 or so, I was dead-set on becoming a meteorologist. I wish you luck with the rainfall project! (If you do a map for Linda, could you send to User:Juliancolton?) I still have it bookmarked, so I'll be checking it every once in a while. I'm sorry my departure will create a gap in the project, I really am. It's selfish to leave, I know, but we're all just a bunch of volunteers on this wonderful site. Take it easy, and cheers. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For a storm of that importance, there is too little information in the article. Since it did affect Mexico there has to be something for it. Also, I do believe articles are being held at higher standards now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sense in arguing over something like this, I'll just go with C-class even though I think it's start. Personal preference doesn't override the qualifications :P Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, articles that have major cleanup tags such as {{section-stub}} are assessed as Start-Class. More minor tags such as {{fact}} are less significant. I suppose there is no guideline that enforces this, so feel free to re-assess the article. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone00:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow thanks for the Rainfall data for Nadi Airport for 04F. Yep it is a shame that the rainfall data is not sourced yet, though ill have a dig through RSMC Nadis documents page in the hope that provides me with something as i have seen data on their before.
Thanks for the tipoff about the pictures as i must of missed them earlier when i was on there to nab the latest Tropical Disturbance Advisory on 05F. I had a problem earlier myself when i was on Nadis website and now ive just resorted to downloading the three PDFs and from the BA and the Sigtota PDFs it looks like it 04F had a very bad effect on Fiji.Jason Rees (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen that you've been greatly improving the early/mid 1980's Pacific typhoon season articles and include rainfall for most of the storms. I've also started to expand the PTS articles, starting with 1998 and I was wondering if you had information on rainfall from the storms during that year. Good luck with the expansions, rainfall project, and thanks for your help, Cyclonebiskit23:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just included that in my edit summary for the 2008 ATL season after a discussion with Hurricanehink earlier this month. It came about when I proposed the 2006 Pacific typhoon season be upgraded to Top-importance as it was the most destructive on record, being the only season to cause over $30 billion, with $13.5 billion being from one storm alone. It featured several multi-billion dollar storms but lacked extensive media coverage, thus the article was left at High-importance. I know this response is a bit of a rambling complaint but I have no other way to explain the use of media coverage being part of importance for the time being. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit22:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:1994122318GOES7vis.gif. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers!
Hello. In the German WP we're trying to resolve a problem with two unsourced statements about maximum precipitations. Our article (de:Niederschlag) states that the maximum observed hourly rain was 40 mm (Shangdi, China, 1947) and the maximum daily precipitation some 1.825 mm (Foc-Foc, Réunion, 1966): Doing the maths, 24 x 40 mm is much lower, definitely at least one of the values is wrong. Could you help out? --Matthiasb (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This can be tricky at times. IP addresses change every so often, sometimes every few days, so we can never be sure if it's the same person. Also, generally, we wait for several edits in a short time period (a day or so) before applying a block. Nonetheless, I'll keep a close eye on it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone18:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
I'm afraid that the article may not qualify for DYK, as it existed at half its present size a month ago before being unfortunately vandalized, see my comments on the DYK Suggestions page. Cool3 (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When talking about severe weather, how would you wiki-link this? If not the whole thing, when which two articles would accurately reflect what this is referring to? Thanks. WxGopher (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, first of all, it's good to be back editing, and I'm glad everyone's (pretty much) still around here. Regarding the WPTC, I don't want to be part of a project that puts so much emphasis on the least notable storms. I am annoyed by the non-notable storms that have been going through FAC, as that takes away limited resources and time for something that will never be on the main page. Likewise, I hate how much effort exists to write articles for every storm. I suppose that's partly my fault for pushing for lesser notable storms to get articles (back in 2006), but I never imagined articles for, well, most any of the fish tropical storms.
I used this analogy on IRC. Let's say the WPTC is like the European Union. Well, I'm like Switzerland. I'd prefer to keep my autonomy, as I happen to disagree with what the project doing, but I'm still basically a part of it. I won't be doing any assessment/stats/merging stuff on the project pages, at least for now.
Yea, it really is frustrating. I admit, I can be guilty of working on something fun (an easy article) every once in a while, but I try to balance it with more notable things. I for one really appreciate your efforts to get those important articles (seasons, retirees, met. terms) articles up to a good shape; notice I said "good", as in GA - it's great that you do enough effort to take it to GA, as opposed to spending the extra time and effort to get the FA star. I think part of the problem might be that the season articles aren't developed enough. It's easy to write two to three paragraphs and justify its existence for a fish storm, with only four sentences in the season article. Two other problems are our lack of writers (it seems like only five people are writing for a project that is huge and endless) and that we are volunteers (we can't force anyone to do anything, which is more of a Wikipedia-wide problem).
If our project is a microcosm of Wikipedia, then we can look at larger scale solutions (Wikipedia-wide) for how to fix ours. Wikipedia wide, some important articles are getting work done to them, as there is plenty of focus on them (WP:VITAL). When those articles get featured, they're usually shown on the main page, as the more important articles are chosen more frequently and quicker. Could that be a solution? As a project, we agree to ask the FA director(s) not to feature any of our articles, unless it's an anniversary for an important storm? This year, we have a few storm anniversaries, and one of them (Tip) Juliancolton and I worked together for it to be featured for its 30 year anniversary. That could put a little more focus on what articles to work on, and hopefully form some collaborations. Another solution, which is what I've been calling for, is more integration of newcomers. If someone comes along during the hurricane season, and they decide to edit, they'll either leave due to an unwelcoming atmosphere, or they'll follow the editing patterns of the project (meaning they'll also be making new articles, since everyone is doing that). IDK, just some thoughts. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, thanks. That was fast. I only expanded three storms in that article. I'm doing some more work on the 190xs adding some of the damage information given in the Monthly Weather Review. I hadn't done much on the project in a while and thought since I was skimming the MWRs anyway, maybe I'd help out. You guys have done great work. The 1920s could use some attention. Maybe I'll hit them later. Thanks again, HurricaneERIC - Class of '08:XVII Maius MMVIII23:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it was a surprise to come back on this evening, and find the barnster you left for me - Thanks. - The annoying part about the conversation is that the report probbably wont be released until the summer of 2010 and will probabbly be a C&P of Padgetts report containing nothing new. - Oh and thanks for the GA pre review and the copyedit both are much appreciated - it seems that TCWC Wellington has had a changed around of their website since i wrote the article Jason Rees (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
That's odd. I don't think I ever remarked on the system to Gary. I'll check my e-mail. Either way, there would be no official HPC advisories. Thegreatdr (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks David for all your assistance ive added it to the South Atlantic tropical cyclone list and i will try and fill in the details later :} -
Jason Rees has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
{{subst:if|||
{{{message}}}
||subst=subst:}}
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
File copyright problem with File:CAprecipitation.gif
Thank you for uploading File:CAprecipitation.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
Tropical Storm Erick (2007) is currently up for featured article review (link), and someone on there has requested the opinion of a professional meteorologist... namely you ;) It hasn't gotten into a huge debate (yet), just to let you know. Right now, it's more of a discussion whether an article has significant, independent coverage if all of the content comes from the same source. In this case, it's whether Erick has enough distinct sources, as all of the content stems from the NHC/NOAA. If you'd rather stay out of it, that's fine too! Take it easy --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment at Erick's FAC, I was wondering if you felt that this news article is indeed independent of the NHC, as it includes a direct quote from forecaster Pasch. Thanks in advance for your response, –Juliancolton | Talk13:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alma, Lowell, Norbert, and Ike from 2008 all have errors in the data. Kika is still missing. Also Patsy from 1959 is entered incorrectly (I believe the correct points are found in the Annual Typhoon Report which is still at the JTWC website.) Potapych (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When making track maps, some of the points are placed too close together. The ones I made from the TCR seem to work fine and look smooth. For example, two of the coordinates for Norbert are right next to one another around the Baja peninsula. Ike's points do the same thing a few times around Cuba. Do you want to see the coordinates I made from the TCR?
As for Patsy, when it moves to 179.0 degrees E, it has actually moved 1 degree west of the dateline. It should be entered as 1801 since HURDAT doesn't account for eastern or negative longitudes. The Typhoon Report tells you exactly which points need to be fixed (which is all the ones east of the dateline). This is how they did it for John of 1994 and Ioke. Potapych (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You left me (Diderot's dreams) a message about the Insect article, a GA review, and reference formatting. I'm not the nominator of this article or involved in any way. I did some fixing/organizing of the GA templates a few days ago after seeing a problem on the talk page, maybe that's why you thought it was me. Diderot's dreams (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that would be User:Reywas92, and thanks for adding comments, though I might just as well fix them all to cite templates anyway for future purposes, like maybe when it is ready for FA review, that will make it easier. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, for some reason cite temps look more aesthetic when editing, I don't know why, well anyway, when I was first starting to improve this article, I had to add a lot of refs, so I added bare refs, a lot of them, that explains why there are so many. If you can, can you help me convert them, we will both do it, that way it gets done faster, you don't have to of course, but first explain to me how you do that, like an example for one of them. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is nice to see that the article finally passed (about a week or two ago), I am still waiting for a reply, because I believe everything has been completed. Bugboy52.4 (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to ask you before I lost my mind. I'm preparing for a new article (Hurricane Lily of 1971), but I'm butting my head for a solid DYK fact. I found what ultimately would be a nice fact, but the biggest problem is I have no perfect sources for it. The fact is that when Lily passed over Barra de Navidad, the locals in the village gathered in a church. During the storm, the arms on the crucified Jesus Christ "broke" and hung down, which the townspeople viewed as a blessing, since Lily left the village relatively unscathed (unlike in Puerto Vallarta, where the hurricane was the worst in 20 years, which was my backup DYK). After a while, I found a site with a picture of the statue in question with a caption, but I'm stuck wondering: does it work as a source?
http://www.lumika.org/mexico/country_life/104.htm (In addition, I've found no good sources for the Palo Seco relocation). Thanks! Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By analogy with "major hurricane", is it appropriate to use the term "minor hurricane" in Wikipedia? I just ask as of the nine hits an NWS search gives for minor hurricane, your work results in seven of them. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline04:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a pages titled Late Twentieth Century, which uses the term in its paragraph about Hurricane Hugo. Since it's from the HPC and has /roth/ in the URL, I assumed you had something to do with it.
Are Americas forecasters (NOAA etc) removing the pressures from the SSHS permanent or are they waiting untill next year. Also im surprised you didnt mention it like you did with the monthly summuaries last year:P Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I was tossing three articles in the air (Lily, Sudal, and a third) but I'm stuck on one of the words in a source I was going to use for the third (I think it's one of your works, so I wanted to ask you about it). According to a History of Virginia Hurricanes page about the late Nineteenth Century, an excerpt from the entry on Tropical Storm 16 of 1887 (Oct. 31 - Nov. 1) say the following:
"A record number of maritime mishaps were caused by the storm. Four ships, the Mary D. Cranmer, Carrie Holmes, Manantico, and Harriet Thomas were lost. Two lives were claimed offshore (Pouliot). The Carrie Holmes was driven so high into the beach that its crew jumped off the schooner and waded safely to shore; it proved a $7000 loss."
I've found numerous sources about this storm as well as a couple sources about the circumstances of the four ships. The part I'm stuck on is what the record is for. Is it about ship damage reports or shipwrecks? Also, what does "Pouliot" mean? I thought it was the name of the ship where the two lives were claimed, but all the sources I have say the two lives were among the Manantico's crew (I was going to call the storm the 1887 Manantico tropical storm because of it, with 1887 Cape Henry tropical storm a backup name). Thanks for reading and I hope you respond. The source I was mentioning is [1].
Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thegreatdr has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Thegreatdr's Day! For your fantastic work with weather-related articles, enjoy being the star of the day, dear Thegreatdr!
Yea, I pretty much gave up hope on that a while ago. I copied the MH, preps, and Cuba/Offshore GOM, since they could easily be plugged in. With the lack of interest from when we made the first push for a collaboration, I feel a bit dismayed by the project (the Camille collab, although I did quit, so I am also dismayed by the WPTC in general). However, you can still ask around, I won't stop you :) There's still some info in the project sandbox that might not be in the main article - I'll see if I can sift through some of it to put in the main article. Cheers --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understanding the reasoning behind your argument as well; you have an excellent point regarding Current-Class, though as far as I know that isn't a standard class, and is used exclusively for WPTC. Of course we should be working on older storms, but I think for the moment, people will most want to learn about the upcoming/current season.
And of course I'm open to any criticism. I do regret not working on "important" storms, but as you've probably noticed, I'm a defender of the more non-noteworthy articles. :) –Juliancolton | Talk21:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for others, but at least for me, I think working on the deadly/damaging storms can be somewhat difficult emotionally, which hinders research abilities. Then again, I could be completely wrong; perhaps I'm just lazy... –Juliancolton | Talk21:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your rainfall map for 1972's Hurricane Joanne indicates that the highest rainfall amount in Arizona was 4.34 in at Sierra Ancha. However, a page from the western region of the National Weather Service says this: "...Over 5.00 inches of rain is reported on the Mogollon rim southeast of Flagstaff. Rainfall amounts included 4.44 at Flagstaff, 3.80 at Prescott, 2.21 at Yuma, 1.95 at Phoenix, 1.63 at Nogales, and 1.63 at Tucson." What should I do regarding these contradictory sources? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline01:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 7th DC Meetup dinner will be held this Saturday, June 6th, starting at 5 p.m. The event will be at Bertucci's, near George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom metro station. It will follow the Apps for Democracy open source event at GWU. For details or to RSVP if you haven't already, see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 7. (You have received this announcement because your user page indicates that you live in Maryland, Virginia, or DC.)
Delivered by TheHelpfulBot at 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC) to report errors, please leave a note here. [reply]
I found a report from the Mexico Meteorological Service that has a rainfall map for TS Dora but I can't use it since it's not Public Domain. I was wondering if you could use the information from there and create your own version of it. Report Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I know you're busy, but I was wondering whether Hurricane Olivia in 1971 would ever get a rainfall map. I saw in the September 1971] Weather and Circulation summary, they mentioned the remnants causing rainfall in Arizona and New Mexico, and since its track moved over Baja California, I'd imagine there was rainfall there. The reason I'm asking is because I'm writing an article on Irene-Olivia, and you are an awesome Wikipedian, after all ;) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame that YE might be treated unfairly, but I agree that the article should not have passed GA, and that it will take some major rewriting for it to pass GA status. I'll talk to him about it (on IRC) and give him some pointers. I doubt he'll get turned off from writing if his GA gets delisted, but you never know in this project. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you're right. While it's true that we can't really force anyone to work on something they don't want to work on (my third law and all that), the problem the WikiProject has is that it has never been (well, at least post-2005) a cohesive unit. Right now, it's not a point of collaboration as much as it is a point of regulation ("Here's the styles, naming conventions, templates that you have to use. Enjoy.") and many users are just happy to work by themselves without any help. My question is more as to how we can change WPTC's culture to encourage more working with each other, instead of focusing the work on lone wolves... and the "WE WILL MERGE EVERYTHING OR ELSE" approach does not encourage anyone to work together. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)19:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring/incivility is most certainly not acceptable, though it appears William Connelley isn't the only one at "fault". I left a brief comment at the article's talk page, and I'll check back periodically to see if any further action is necessary. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. –Juliancolton | Talk19:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the above and your comment here, could you please enlighten me as to what comments that you feel are uncivil? And that in your opinion should be redacted? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles. Please stay on topic. More importantly, Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopaedia. When you've reached the point where you're suggesting that we delete content from pages in order to avoid conflict in talk space...time to stop focusing on the trees and remember it's the forest that's the point. Guettarda (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
(And yes, I'm well aware of the irony in that statement). Guettarda (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No interest in improving the article? I think you've spun William's position into something it isn't. After all, just because you aren't particularly interested in an article doesn't mean that you should sit idly by while people try to work fringe positions into it. Guettarda (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just add the following text: importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js'); to User:Thegreatdr/monobook.js, and WP:PURGE your cache; after you're done with that, you should see a "Page size" link in the toolbox column, on the left-hand side of the article. Currently Wind has 6,218 words of readable prose, which is still comfortably below the recommended limit. Hope this helps. –Juliancolton | Talk19:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never quite understood the difference between those templates, so indeed, they can get a bit frustrating. Though when I write articles, I've always been content knowing that I've produced a comprehensive and well-written resource; misplaced dashes and incorrect citation templates are usually inconsequential. –Juliancolton | Talk20:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For any future articles you're thinking of taking to FAC, feel free to drop a note and a link to the article on my talk page before you nominate, so that all the sourcing issues can be worked through before FAC. Lots of folks do that, so one more person isn't an issue at all. It's a lot less stressful to deal with the picky (but necessary) sourcing issues before facing the prose gauntlet. --Ealdgyth - Talk15:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love for you to hold the nomination a few more days...I'm recovering from my wisdom teeth extraction so work is slow, but I'm tryig hard (promise :-D). If you want to fail it you can, I'll just re-nominate it when I'm all done.
Just out of curiosity, aside from the short lede, did you have any other concerns with the article? I'd ultimately love to get it to FA status, so any imput is greatly appreciated. Thanks again! -RunningOnBrains(talk page)18:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to expand the lede, but aside from listing every single one of the myths addressed in the article I don't really know what else to do.
As far as the book references go, I've used this format (citing the page number inline with the full book info at the end) on all my articles, including FAs such as Tornado. I don't see anything at WP:CITE that has a problem with it; this actually helps to reduce clutter.
I have fixed the lede...I think. It sounds a bit blocky and forced to me; let me know if it needs further refinement.
I still don't understand your issue with the book refs. As I said, every article I have used books in before I have done this way, including Tornado and List of Connecticut tornadoes (both featured), and no one has had a problem. In fact, according to Wikipedia:CITESHORT, this is recommended for dealing with the citation of different pages from a single source, which is the case here.
Okay, I can see that you dislike the way I reference the books. But this is a completely valid format according to WP:CITESHORT, and it happens to be the method I prefer; I believe it makes the reference section less cluttered and more readable. Remember, this is a GAN, not an FAC; do we really need to nitpick this much? -RunningOnBrains(talk page)17:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I cave. I've formatted the book refs according to your wishes, even though I believe this is a severe case of following the letter of the law rather than the spirit. Not to be difficult, but your comments about other "issues" aren't actionable and therefore aren't helpful to me. I added an image to the lede yesterday, I don't know why you can't see it. Is there a problem with the image captions? Is the prose bad? Don't get me wrong, you were understanding giving me extra time and all, and I appreciate your constructive criticism, but seriously, you're digging quite deep to find issues with this article. -RunningOnBrains(talk page)19:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I actually don't know how to do that. Someone usually comes along and includes the code for me. I'll see what the code is for doing that, so this doesn't occur in the future. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's separate from the template: for a first review you add {{Talk:Tornado myths/GA1}} to the bottom of the talk page. For a second review, it's {{Talk:Tornado myths/GA2}}, etc. Regardless, I have done it, this is just for future reference.-RunningOnBrains(talk page)02:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im surprised you havent been invited on before but it would be really good if you came on to the Project's IRC Channel at times, as it would be good to get your views on things that crop up from time to time, such as Ike's importance. Just type Wiki-hurricanes into the channel box and choose a nickname for yourself. And before i forget it heres the Link. Jason Rees (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed response - I cant argue with what you said. Im thinking about converting Tropical Cyclone Scale's GA in to an FA and would like to know what needs to be done in your opinon. Also do you know how to convert from 1-3 minute winds and 10-3 min winds as it would be really usefull to know how to convert them. Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer opportunity in Bethesda, Thursday, July 16
The Wikimedia Foundation will be conducting an all-day Academy at the National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Maryland, on Thursday, July 16. The team that will be teaching at the Academy, a mix of paid staff and volunteers, is looking for four more volunteers to be teaching assistants, providing one-to-one assistance in workshops whenever a workshop participant has a problem following the instructional directions. (We currently have two editors signed up as teaching assistants, and are looking for a total of six.)
The NIH editing workshops are only for two hours, but volunteers are asked to meet the Wikimedia Foundation team at the hotel in Bethesda at about 7:15 a.m. (time to be finalized shortly) and to stay for the entire day, which ends at 4:30 p.m. Lunch will be provided. (The full schedule can be found here.)
The team is not necessarily looking for expert editors (though they are welcome), just people who can help novices who might get stuck when trying to do some basic things. If you've been an editor for at least 3 months, and have done at least 500 edits, you probably qualify.
If you're interested, please send John Broughton an email. If you might be interested, but would like further information, please post a note on his user talk page, so that he can respond there, and others can see what was asked.
Thanks. Snow is possibly my favorite thing in the world behind tornadoes, so it's no problem. Hopefully I'll get on down there to smooth out some more wrinkles...fresh eyes are always good! -RunningOnBrains(talk page)06:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The (limited and perhaps maladroit) changes I've made in the first bit of the article (ignoring, please, my snide comment), may give a sense of where jargon might impede readability of the article.
However, could be a case in which "if you have to ask" then maybe you can't help, or maybe you can.
I've added article to "watch list" for the moment, and may try to marginally contribute. I don't pretend to understand subject with slightest depth, and would be cautious.
The larger problem is in its organization.
A general reader wants to know, immediately, what are the potential consequences of El Nino. Instead, the article's lead grafs launch into a long-winded and seemingly vague description of its history and theory that are more appropriate for deep into its body.
For some reason unknown to myself, the Rainfall Maxima is lacking rainfall data on Typhoon Dolphin which affected Guam so i thought id point you in the direction of this webcite which ive just done since it contains the rainfall data. :) Jason Rees (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dr - Cyclonebiskit and myself have written a timeline about the 1987 AHS and we have chucked it up at FLC but the FLC Delegate is thinking that the List of Depressions is too complicated. if you could comment on the FLC about the list it would be appreciated. Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - it seemed like we were going around in circles and after all this hassle youre not the only one who hates FXC Beaurcracy. O and its Seddon who was working on an article about Hurdat so i will see if i can get in contact with him.Jason Rees (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently posted a few topics and ideas that can be covered on the subject of the Severe weather article. It's located at the talk page of the article. I though you may check it out and confirm if any of topics can be covered or not and help write them, since you know a lot about the subject and have contributed to the article itself.
Thanks.
KnowledgeRequire (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A contributed some to its development when collaboration was proposed, but I'll see what I can do over the next few days to help it out. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it this chart you are refering to : File:Diagramme tve.png ? If it is, I have a copy somewhere that I can load in Commons.
By the way, I linked the article in French to the Severe Weather article in English before all the improvements you and other did to it. At that time, the English article was just about summer convection and was the closest to Forecasting severe thunderstorms which is the meaning of the French article. However, now the English article is about all sorts of severe weather, winter and summer, and the link is not so good. I would like to know if you can think of an English article more related or if the Severe Weather project plan to create one ?
I can't find any reference to doppler radar in the sources listed, so I'm not sure how that got in. I must have mistyped when I wrote the initial article. –Juliancolton | Talk18:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To save Cyclonebiskits sanity can you confirm what the rainfall total in Bermuda was for hurricane Bill. According to the bermuda weather service its 0.03 Inches but thats gotta be wrong we think. Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check when I get into work tomorrow. I think we keep the synoptic obs for a few days on our system. They did get one band pass over them early on, and may have stayed between the CDO and band thereafter. Bermuda normally doesn't get heavy rainfall (4+") from tropical cyclones. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It helps define the time frame when Felicia rained upon Hawaii. Tomorrow, I'll check the old satellite imagery at work and make sure that covers the whole time frame. Rainfall amounts without latitude/longitude coordinates aren't terribly useful (to me although they clearly are more useful to wikipedia), though they are better than nothing. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the simplest thing would be to review the article myself, and I have done so accordingly. I have one minor concern which I outlined on the review page, but other than that it's ready to pass. –Juliancolton | Talk00:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a thankyou for all of youre hard work on Wikipeida ill share with you the videos that i found the other night on Utube of the NHC/WFO Miami when in "Hurricane Tracking mode" which may or may not bring back some memories for you since you worked there for a while during 92-94.
Cyclonebiskit has brought both books and has noticed in the atlantic one that the Basins show up in the SHEM as SPAC 135E-120W with the SEIO from 90E - 135E. This is wrong as i can proof that Cyclones Hamish and Billy were in the same basin as each other though each were at other ends. The way it is set up in the Shem is as follows SWIO - 90-30E, AUS - 90E - 160E, SPAC - 160E - 120W.Jason Rees (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, David. It is actually not too bad with 250 px resolution because background is not messy. Of course delete the image I added to your talk page after you'll see it. It is just to show to you how nice it will look in the article. :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to use the image, crop it down to the couple, so you can see what's going on. All those surrounding rocks are not necessary for the theme you're trying to represent. It kinda looks like the groom is blowing a big white horn above the bride's head! Thegreatdr (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thegreatdr. I'm rather concerned at the use of jargon in Low-pressure area. The article is very difficult to understand for the average reader, so would not - as it stands - meet GA criteria. I have started a WP:GAR, and my concerns are here. Regards SilkTork *YES!11:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:19501126sfc.gif is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:19501126sfc.gif. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:19501126sfc.gif]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since i think you are the only one who might know the answer - Where would i link the Mascarene high to? - It came up in one of the advisories issued by the JTWC and from what i can see played a significant role in CY Anja. Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you're hanging in there. I haven't been following it extremely closely, but am unsuprised it's received some legitimate attention lately (in addition to lots of vandalism). I still do think brevity is a virtue.
Re this, I was trying to figure out a way to avoid duplicating the word "Cuba" twice in the opening line. My solution was admittedly weak, but any other ideas? Hope your holiday season has been enjoyable so far. –Juliancolton | Talk04:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, possibly. Looking through WP:BOLDTITLE, I think that article falls under the following rule: "If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface." Since "1910 Cuba hurricane" isn't an official name, it's probably descriptive. –Juliancolton | Talk05:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
I'm afraid that the article may not qualify for DYK, as it existed at half its present size a month ago before being unfortunately vandalized, see my comments on the DYK Suggestions page. Cool3 (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. Good luck! –Juliancolton | Talk 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
