User talk:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31

In the UK ‘Mackerel Sky’ refers to a sky where the cloud formation resembles not the scales but the ‘stripes’ found on a Mackerel’s sides. This may be a variation of the entry but the similarity to the Mackerel’s stripes and the cloud formation is unmistakable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkersley (talk • contribs) 10:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

 * }

Cloud
If you made additions to articles within wikipedia, please add the appropriate inline references per the Manual of Style. A mention in the edit summary is not enough. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Every paragraph should have at least one source within it. When you split paragraphs, you need to use refname=""/ format if the source of both paragraphs is the same.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your referencing is coming along nicely. When it gets well-enough referenced, check over the quality of the text.  If it looks good to you, go for a GAN run.  It's a positive learning experience.  Thegreatdr (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think the article has enough information and referencing, we can send it through the GAN process. But only if you're ready.  Thegreatdr (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, it's not quite ready. I need you to address the referencing concerns I placed on the article's talk page.  I think I've fixed the dead reference, and reference formatting, issues elsewhere within the article.  Thegreatdr (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Cloud, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Equilibrium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Trans-Canada Highway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deficit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited North American English, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dyke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Accessory cloud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arcus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11
Hi. When you recently edited Cloud, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hemisphere and Polar cell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Next Star, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christopher Ward (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Photo Caption request ignored
Hello Chris, Since you seem to be the main contributor to the Cloud article (nice work), I thought you'd be the perfect editor to ask why a simple request in the cloud talk page asking what type of clouds are in a photo I attached has been ignored. Are they so difficult to categorize? P.S. I don't plan on putting this photo into the cloud article..... just in case that's why my question has been ignored. It's a photo of my own that I would like to caption for my user page, and perhaps a gallery in another article in the future. Funny thing is, Two international Wiki sites have picked up the photo as the main photo to illustrate their "Sky" articles. I have translated their pages to see if they mention what types of clouds they are, but there is no mention of it. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi; sorry for the slow reply. Thanks for your favourable comments :) I haven't been checking the discussion page as often as I should as there hasn't been much activity there lately. The smaller clouds are cumulus humilis and the larger clouds are cumulus mediocris.  I don't think any of the clouds in the photo are large enough to be cumulus congestus.  I hope that helps.  User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 12:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Chris, I am now a more educated cloud gazer. All the best......Pocketthis (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vancouver Island, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Urban and Interchange (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Earth's atmosphere.svg
Yes, the cloud pictured is a noctiluscent cloud, and it's supposed to be in the mesosphere (note how it gets cut off at the edge of the mesosphere layer), though I understand if it looks like it's in the stratosphere. I moved the cloud a bit so more of it gets cut off. As for the auroræ, I think they're clearly in the thermosphere—can you explain why they look like they're in the mesosphere?—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I now partly agree with you about the placement of the aurora in the diagram. I apparently mistook the Karman line for the mesopause. Proper identification of the mesopause puts the aurora partly in the mesosphere and partly in the lower thermosphere. This appears consistent with the altitude range givien in the Wikipedia article about auroras/aurorae, but now has me believing this article about the atmosphere shouldn't be describing the mesopause as being practically one and the same as the turbopause. I plan to amend the text to clarify these two boundaries are quite distinct and are separated by a significant vertical distance. Still, the diagram appears to extend the aurora down into the stratosphere, and with that I disagree. In addition, I stand by my belief that the location of the noctilucent cloud in the diagram is entirely erroneous. As far as I can see, this polar mesospheric cloud has been placed fully below the stratopause and therefore dead centre in the stratosphere. Perhaps the diagram's creator recalls (and was misled by) the time decades ago before the mesosphere was recognized or defined as a layer, and noctilucent clouds were, by the definition of the time, an upper stratospheric water-based aerosol. So the question for me is whether the error is serious enough to warrent exclusion of the diagram from the Wikipedia article. I believe all diagrams incorporated into Wikipedia articles should be of the highest possible quality for both graphics and overall accuracy. If this diagram is to be included, then the error should be prominantly flagged by a caption immediatly adjacent to the diagam.


 * It's a three-dimensional diagram—do you see the triangle that marks the mesopause? If you use that as the plane of reference, then the aurora is clearly above the mesopause. The same applies for the noctiluscent cloud, though I get that it's much more ambiguous. Would it help if I moved the cloud farther to the upper left?—Kelvinsong (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Aha, I get it now; you're the one who created the chart in the first place! I was wondering what you meant by moving the cloud around. Your chart is a very clever piece of work, and I could see the chart was supposed to be 3-dimensional, but I didn't get that is was a view of the layers as seen from outer space looking down at a fairly sharp angle. The triangular shape of the "column" threw me as well. Now that I understand how to look at it, I can see the noctilucent cloud is in the right layer, but I agree moving the cloud as far to the upper left as possible will help. It would help the perspective even more if you can depict a nacreous cloud directly below it in the upper left of the stratosphere, and then place the tropospheric clouds directly below that in the upper left of the troposphere. I think it would be similarly helpful to place the aurora in the upper left of the thermoshere so all the natural atmospheric phenomena are in a vertical stack with each one directly above the other. Then any man-made craft could be shown in the upper right part of each of their respective layers; a subsonic airplane in the troposphere, a weather balloon and/or supersonic airplane in the stratosphere, an old X-15 or new Virgin Galactic aircraft/spacecraft in the mesosphere, and the international space station in the thermosphere. This would leave the forward apex of the triangular column largely empty, but it's difficult to represent anything there because of the parallax problem. Maybe changing the perspective to a less steep angle from above would also help, and perhaps replacing the sharp front apex of the column with something shallower and more semi-circular. I hope that helps; I appreciate your interest in my ideas.


 * The viewing angle of the triangular prism is very difficult to change (it involves using 3D software to render out each polygon in the prism stack into a separate SVG file; something like 20 polygons, and merging them) I've moved the noctiluscent cloud, cirrus clouds and the weather balloon, added the nacreous cloud. Better?—Kelvinsong (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes; the height ranges for the clouds show up very well now. I gather the meteors and aurorae which you've kept further foreward more or less vertically straddle the Karman line. That part could still be a little tricky for some viewers to analyse. However it helps that the Karman line is depicted on all three "sides" of the column with a very clear white line that shows up much better than the lower placed 3 dimentional boundaries. If my interpretation of the positioning of the meteors and aurorae are correct, I'd say the diagram has been clarified sufficiently to be a valuable and unique feature for the article. Thanks again for your interest in my ideas :)
 * I've added the image back to the article.—Kelvinsong (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Great to see it back in the article :) I can see I judged it too hastily at first, not knowing how to interpret it properly. However, with the clarifications you've made to the chart, and with the help you've given me to understand the layout, I can say it's the best and most comprehensive diagram I've seen showing the layers of the atmosphere and the various clouds and other phenomena that occur at various altitudes. Good work! User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 23:40, 17 June 2013 UTC


 * Thank you!—Kelvinsong (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pan-American Highway, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Washington State, Whistler and Cache Creek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neerja Bhanot Award, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hijack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

User page change
I just thought I should say, I corrected what appeared to be a syntax error on your user page. Dustin ( talk ) 22:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing sources
Some of your edits have left reference fragments in articles. I think the original ref you want is at Cumulus cloud but it is part of the bibliography. (Ludlum in the same articles might be fragmented also). 71.234.215.133 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=622866609 your edit] to Cloud may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * int/pmb_ged/wmo_407_en-v1.pdf |accessdate=2014-08-26}}  cite web |author=Cumulus-skynews |title=Clouds: Their curious natures |year=2013 |url=http://

Pilsbury Doughboy
Chris, do you think we can incorporate the Pilsbury Doughboy into our Cloud article?..........:) Just some levity to balance the insanity. Pocketthis (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Haha it would be great to be able to include this! I checked out 'doughboy' in Latin using google translate. The actual cloud appears to be stratocumulus formed by the spreading of cumulus. I think we could call it "stratocumulus puerus coxeruntque-farinus cumulogenitus", rendered in the customary sequence of genus Sc, species puerus (boy), variety coxeruntque-farinus (dough), mother-cloud cumulogenitus. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL...Too bad it is an encyclopedia we edit, and not the Conan O'brian show. When I saw this in the sky, I thought "Ghost Busters 3" was in the making. I couldn't get to my camera fast enough. Been fun, all the best. Pocketthis (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 30 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Cloud page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=636018735 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F636018735%7CCloud%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for December 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cloud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stratus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Cloud diagram
I edited the cloud diagram on cloud to make it include both the cloud names and the two-letter abbreviations so no need to juggle it with the Workenstock picture anymore! && I like moved the “nimbostratus” into the gray part. I still think there ought to be an actual photograph of a cloud in the lead shouldn’t there be?

BTW I’ve just drawn a warm front illustration if you’d like to take a look at it— ♥  Kelvinsong  talk  03:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I see we've met before on my user page, back in 2013 when we were discussing that clever bit of graphics you did for the article about the Earth's atmosphere. Once again, I appreciate your co-operation with the clarification you've made to the nimbostratus label on the classification diagram you've added to the cloud article.  Unfortunately, the diagram doesn't appear to be your creation, or I could have offered a suggestion to give the Ns a more homogeneous look from top to bottom.  In its present form, the Ns is capped by what appears to be a vertically interfacing but still separate layer of Ac stratiformis (as opposed to the Ac floccus depicted on the left side of the diagram).  This combination of clouds is possible, but not typical, and I don't think it's the intent of the diagram to show more than one example of each genus-type.  I'll try and suggest to it's orginal creator the lumpy white upper and smooth grey lower parts be merged and smoothed into a single thick layer with a smoother top. I think that would be a significant improvment to render unnecessary the Wolkenstockwerk chart and the "clarification" I put into the caption about the Ns.  I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy regarding the use of an illustration in the lead section of an article, but I'll try and find out about it.  If necessary or desirable, I can always swap places for the diagram and the photo that was previously in that location.  BTW, I think your new diagram of a warm front is a great improvement over the original that was in the warm front article, as is the chart of the atmosphere you did a couple of years ago.  Keep up the good work! User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 10:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I got rid of the “ac floccus” on top of the nimbostratus, && thanks sm!!— ♥  Kelvinsong  talk  23:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help improving the diagram! I've now simplified the caption by removing expanitory text that's no longer needed. User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 10:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=643659081 your edit] to Cloud may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 ""s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See also|Atmospheric convection

Disambiguation link notification for January 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of transcontinental countries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Convention. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:History of Western art music
Hello: Do you think including a link to Postmodern music in label23 would be appropriate here – and, if so, as "post modern", "post-modern" or "postmodern" – ? Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have created the link you suggested and adopted 'postmodern' as the correct spelling now widely used. including by the article 'postmodern music'. I've also revamped other text and provided references where needed. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 14:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A Photo I don't think will ever make it to the Cloud article
Nature can be a nasty critter! Knew you'd love this......LOL. Pocketthis (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Amazing pic! I'd certainly like to put it in the cloud article. It could simply be labled an unusaual stratocumulus/cirrocumulus combination and let the reader draw their own conclusions. I'm not going to rush into it though. Maybe there is somewhere better to put it! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 13:32, 1 March 1 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would go over too well in the grammar school classroom....with the teacher that is. Perhaps this got separated from the Pillsbury Doughboy cloud during a strong Orographic  lift. Later pal...Pocketthis (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's the "Flying Fickle Finger of Fate" seen on TV 45 yeares ago ;-)  ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 13:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.172.12 (talk)
 * I did a photoshop version, where I connected this "thing" to the Doughboy's crotch. It will never be uploaded here, but my friends sure seem to like it. Now they all understand how a cloud rains....:-)→ Pocketthis (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Could we start a new Wikipedia article 'Cloudporn'? ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 14:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes....then of course it would become a 'Human Deviation', and millions around the world, would be lying outside on their backs playing with themselves.:-)→ Pocketthis (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 April
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Cloud page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=655039326 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F655039326%7CCloud%5D%5D Ask for help])

Formatting of vote at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles
If there is going to be a vote at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles can you format it so there is a very concise statement of what we're voting on before each vote. Something like "Add *****" or "Remove ****" which is the way we normally vote on changes. RJFJR (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've reformatted and simplified my nominations along the lines you've suggested. Please let me know if any other modifications are needed.  If not, let the voting begin! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Whirlpool type Clouds
Hey Chris, caught these last night, and I thought you might like them. I was going to put them up in the "unstable clouds section", but I wouldn't know how to caption them anyway. So, if you like them and want to put it up in our favorite article.....please do. They seem to be pretty unique to anything in the article as of yet, but if you don't like them, I trust your judgement.-thanksPocketthis (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pics! I don't think I've seen anything like this before either, and I don't think there's any official name or classification for them.  I'd like to include at least one of them in the article, but I'll have to give some thought about to where to put it/them; maybe under "Pattern-based varieties". ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My guess is some kind of "wanna-be" funnel cloud from orographic lift. However, when I say "guess", I can't emphasize it enough..lolPocketthis (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Chris, I did the research. They are formed from a phenomenon known as a Karman vortex. When wind driven clouds are forced through a mountain range, or ocean wind driven clouds encounter a high elevation island, they can begin to circle the mountain or high land mass, and form this "Karman Vortex". That is exactly what is happening in that photo. The clouds are being blown from the ocean, across the flat plain, right into the mountain range you see them spinning above. I think that you'll agree that this phenomenon is worth a mention in our favorite article. Thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is definitely worth a mention, and I'll come up with something to put in the article as soon as I can. There's also a Wikipedia article about it, so I'll create a link to that as well.  It turns out the vortex was discovered or defined by the same Karman who came up with the Karman line in the upper atmosphere that commonly defines the beginning of outer space. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Very good. I'm glad it will work out. I liked the photo mainly because I never saw this event before, and from what I've read about it in my research, it's something often caught on Satellite images, but rarely seen from the ground, especially in such a sparingly clouded sky. I am very lucky as a photographer to live in an area where the sky is so big, beautiful, and ever changing. I'm sure, as always, you'll write a great summery of the event. Thanks Chris.-Pocketthis (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I finally got around to putting your photo of the vortex street into the cloud article. The text is a bit of a rush job in which I retained some of your own comments.  If I can improve it over time I will, but I  don't usually do much on Wikipedia at this time of year because of numerous activities outside the house and elsewhere. Thanks again for your contribution! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sweet job Chris. The photo looks great in that spot, and the text is spot on. Thanks for doing what you do. Pocketthis (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Unique clouds
Hey Chris, please click on this one, and notice the shearing from the wind on the clouds. It looks like I put it in Photoshop and smudged them. How rare is this? I've never seen it before, at least not to this degree. Thanks - Pocketthis (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If that's definitly wind shearing and not virga, then it's definitely very unusual. Interestingly enough, I have a photo of a sky like this one I took a couple of months ago except it was sunrise and the cloud was being sheared in 2 directions at once creating a herringbone effect.  This effect is sometimes seen with high clouds (cirrus vertebratus), but what I saw was a much lower cloud, maybe Sc or Ac.  Also the shearing was in a downward vertical direction on 1 side and horizontal on the other side.  I have a few photos of it in my computer but I don't know how to transfer it to Wikipedia.  Also, I want to request a peer review for the Cloud article, but it says to create a new talk page, but I just bet booted back to the regular talk page.  Do you know how to do a peer review request?  ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 01:30, 03 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see your photos. Easy to upload. Just look to your left, third from bottom in tools is upload file. Make sure it's in JPG format, and use the simple 3 step upload wizard that will come up when you click on "Upload File". I don't know what "virga" is, so I can't say one way or the other. I never even noticed it was happening when I took the shot. I noticed it when I downloaded it from the camera. I liked the color and texture of the puffy clouds, and then got a bonus. As far as the peer review, you are asking the wrong guy. I'm lucky I can leave messages..lol. Ask an admin. That's what they're here for. Good luck. - Pocketthis (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! It's got really busy at home right now, so it'll take me a few days to find time to do the pics. I've never uploaded photos to these types of sites before, and I'm quite blind to all these tool-boxes and task wizards that are planted around the fringes of my screen. Fortunately I have a couple of "techie" friends visting for a while, so they can help me through that kind of "JPG" stuff. Maybe they can also help me decipher Wikipedia's complex instructions for getting a peer review. They're not Wikipedians per se, but they're far more computer literate than I am. Wikipedia admin is about as useful as tits on a donkey. I can ask them once for help on something, but after that, they just ignore me. Virga is precipitation that falls from a cloud but evaporates before reaching the ground. It's in the cloud article under 'supplementary features'. I'll try and get back to you in a few days. ***ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 01:30, 05 September 21:20 (UTC)
 * Chris, the upload wizard here is a breeze. The 1st question is: Is this your work? You click the yes box, then it asks you to find your photo. It opens a browser box for you to show them what folder your photo is in. Then they ask you to describe it in a few sentences, and then click on the 4.0 license rights when prompted.....and you are done. The file, description, and photo location is there for you to copy, so you can post it where you want to. Go to edit here, and look at the copy I pasted to get my photos to show up. That info is from the upload. P.S. The photo I posted isn't virga. It's wind shear. Good luck. Pocketthis (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

More weird clouds
Hey Chris, more cloud formations I've never seen before. That is pretty rare because I am no Spring Chicken. The first one was eastern sky at sundown, and the second was during the latter part of Twilight. I think they are downdraft wind shear clouds. The second one I believe would make a great article opener. We have no photo there now, and this is a knock-out of an event. However, perhaps it's too strange for an opener...lol. I thought I was in northern Alaska when I was viewing this. It is mimicking the Aurora Borealis. What do you think? Thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Amazing pics for sure, especially the 2nd one! The bright yellow streaks appear to be wind shear as you say, but I can't make any sense of the bright yellow coloration, especially if it was later twilight. The higher whitish-blue clouds could be noctilucent if it was deep twilight. These are usually polar clouds, but they've occasionally been seen as far south as Utah with some unverified claims even further south. This pic could be a great addition to the cloud article, maybe in the section on coloration, as long as Admin can be convinced it wasn't photoshopped!


 * Unfortunately, I've just been too busy until now to go digging around my computer in search of a task wizard. Our computers must be set up very differently, because I can't even find, much less figure out how to use this beast! I have another techie friend visiting, so maybe the 2 of us can get together and figure this out very soon! **ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI: Every photo goes through Photoshop for cropping and sizing. I don't mess with what you see in my photos. I may add some contrast from time to time if a photo is a bit washed out, or I may lighten or darken a photo if needed. That's where the story ends. There's no issue with convincing an admin. Just click on the photo and then click on "more details", that will take you to the photo's commons page. Then go down to "Metadata". Under that heading, you can click on "extended details". It tells the complete story of the camera settings, as well as if it was a "directly photographed image", or if it was messed with. That will settle that. Every single thing you always wanted to know about any of my photographs but were afraid to ask, is right there for anyone to read. It keeps the bullshit out of the profession. Pocketthis (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as me thinking you were accusing me of anything, absolutely not, but after reading my reply, I can see where you might get that vibe. I just wanted you to know there is no way to mess with a digital photo and get away with it. If you are shooting on film stock, that's another story. The digital photos carry a "finger print" of every click that was made on the photo.
 * I hope I didn't leave you with the impression I personally had any doubts about the authenticity of your pics. My comment was mean to be a bit of a swipe at some senior editors and admin types with whom I've had some less than friendly encounters when they've tried to block or interfere with my work. That said, you've brought to my attention the protections you have from anyone who might question your photo contributions.  I think you are seeing more and more that I know very little about uploading photos onto any website, and I haven't yet got around to aquiring the skills and knowledge for doing so. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Chris, here is the URL for uploading your photo. It's pretty self explanatory: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard&?withJS=MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js However, eventually you will have to join commons if you continue to upload photos. You can get away with a few demonstration photos on here, but anything that ends up in an article will be moved over to commons by someone. If you continue to upload here for articles, you will be kindly asked to start uploading to commons.

Disambiguation link notification for October 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Golden Horseshoe
 * added a link pointing to Grand River


 * Southwestern Ontario
 * added a link pointing to Grand River

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Lakes Megalopolis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I-76. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Couple of things Chris
First, I would never revert one of your posts. That is reserved for vandals, and new editors. I would have just made the edit. Also, the words: étage and étages, may be familiar to a weatherman like you, but I promise you that there isn't a living soul in the US or England that knows WTF it means. This is an encyclopedia used mainly by school kids. I have a Bachelor's degree, and I am proud of my vocabulary, and I had no clue, other than the French translation. There is one way you can keep the word that makes any sense. Since this is a learning institution, you can write a small stub on the word, then you can bracket the word when used in the article to make it blue, and send the reader to the stub to learn the meaning. Thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry if you took the revert as a put-down. I've been reverted a few times on various articles I've worked on, and thought of the  procedure as nothing more or less than a convenient way to put an edit back to the way it was.  Sometimes the reverts of my edits have been warrented and sometimes not.  In the latter case, I've simply counter-reverted with added content to back my changes.


 * Maybe I have inflated aspirations for the articles I work on. I thought part of the purpose of Wikipedia was to introduce new words and terminologies to lay readers.  The best articles I've read by other editors have been the ones that stretch my mind a little and offer me information I can't get from the World Book Encyclopedia or a standard high school textbook.  If some words I've used in the cloud article are too difficult for lay readers to learn, I would have to blame the public education system which has considerably dumbed-down its weather courses since I was in school.  I thought the meaning of 'étage' would be made clear enough by the context in which I've been using it.


 * That said, I'll give consideration to replacing or supplementing " étage" with "altitude range" or some other simpler term if I get an editorial consensus on the article's talk page to do so. I've also been intending for a long time to learn how to create a new article from scratch (as opposed to merely editing existing articles), which I would have to do to try out your suggestion.  But I have create the time and focus necessary to undertake that kind of initiative (you may have noticed I still haven't gotten around to learning how to post photos on Wikipedia). As for "floor", sorry, I couldn't let it remain.  That term is not used by any authority I know of to describe the altitude range of a cloud.  My apologies if I didn't make the change in a more diplomatic way.


 * p.s. In paragraph 2 of the intro, my version reads "altitude ranges or étages" at the point where cloud height is mentioned for the first time. I made that change quite some time ago to explain the latter term near the top of the article, but maybe it would be helpful to do the same elsewhere in the piece. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time for such a lengthily reply. Since étage is not an English word, I find it interesting that you would think it would be learned in public schools here. I promise you it isn't, unless your major was meteorology (I'm guessing). Writing a stub is a snap, and would take much less time than your reply to me here...lol. The articles I read here (and I try to read a new one each day) that are the most educational for me, are those that have the most bracketed words. I always follow the blue words to their stub or article, and lean new words. I couldn't do that with étage, because it has no stub or article. Here is the simplest way to make a stub: Go to the search engine and type in étage. A blue box will drop down saying: "Containing étage". Click on that, and you will then see all the places it is used, as well as the option to start an article for it. If you click on the start an article, the directions walk you through it in 2 minutes. You can make it one paragraph long. Then it will be referred to as a stub. This is actually like a dictionary article for the word. When you hit save at the bottom of the page as you do with every post you make......you're done. Now it will be blue when bracketed. I just took more time here explaining it to you, than it would take you to make it. lol. Thanks buddy-Pocketthis (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your tip about how to create a stub article. Just one thing; which search engine are you referring to?  I don't think it's Google because that alone doesn't take me to the next steps you outlined. So maybe Wikipedia has it's own search engine I don't yet know about.


 * Just a few more comments about my use of 'étage'. Yes, it's a French word, but so is 'faux pas', another of several French words and phrases that seem to have made their way into the 'English' language.  I first introduced the term to the 2 main Wikipedia cloud articles, 'Cloud' and 'List of cloud types', nearly 2 years ago. I had been switching the article from International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) terminolgy and classification to World Meteorological Organization (WMO) terms of reference because I believe the latter is more scientific.  I think ICAO classification is out of date except maybe for aviation use, and contains some classifications I don't think work well outside that community of interest (I can go into more detail about that if you want me too). Also, another Wikipedia editor who goes by the user name 'The reaper eternal' previously introduced the French/WMO term to the article 'Cirrus cloud' which he/she was revamping and quickly earned it an FA rating.  So you could say was trying to emulate that effort.  I'm wondering if you only recently noticed 'étage' in the cloud article we've been working on, since I don't think you've openly questioned it until now.


 * It's possible we may have different ideas about what age groups or educational backgrounds the cloud article should be aimed at. There is a Wikipedia cloud article in 'Simple English' that I think is best for elementary school students.  The only thing is you have to click onto the language column to the left of the regular article, something younger students might not think to do.  It took me a long time before I noticed it was even there.  As I understand it, Wikipedia intends its regular English-language science articles to be aimed mostly at high school and freshman/sophomore college students.  I think those who are intelligent and seriously interested in meterology can handle the official WMO terms if they are sufficiently explained on Wikipedia.  I gather is where you think my efforts have fallen a bit short until now.  Those who are not so interested, and are just trying to earn a credit and then move on, will likely settle for whatever is in their basic school textbook and not bother with Wikipedia.  And wouldn't you know it, most North American school textbooks use the simpler but less scientific classification that the WMO discarded over half a century ago, but which is still used by ICAO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=entage&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 Just click on that link, and it will take you to the page to begin an article. By the way, your post I'm seeing here is an article on its own...lol. I'll have to come back to read it, as I am reading War and Peace right now...:-)Pocketthis (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So I've just completed another hefty tome for you! I guess you now have a pretty good idea as to where I'm coming from on this issue.  And yes, I'll have a go at creating that stub article as soon as I know which search engine to use and how to access it.  Many thanks my friend! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, of course you silly boy, I am talking about the search engine at the top of our page here, and on every en.wikipedia page. OK here, I'll make it easier for you. I just typed in enatge to our search engine, and here is the page that comes up:


 * So..I just completed reading your full reply to me. Chris, my concerns are much simpler than you would imagine. When I see a word that I don't know, I look it up. I looked up entage, and it was not in the dictionary, so I copied and pasted it with the french apostrophe within it, (étage) and went to google translate. It said: "floor". Chris, you are a great asset to the cloud article. You have the same passion with the text as I do with the art. Also, I know you live in Canada. I also know that Canadians are generally much more used to and tolerant of french words mixed in to English spoken conversations. My advice, take it or leave it, is if you must use a french word or any foreign word in the article, just explain it. Even if you just put it in parenthesis, and explain it briefly that way. For instance: you use the word étage in a sentence ('étage' means blah blah blah). Other than that, what ever makes you happy. Perhaps you will enjoy making the article stubs as you go along, and you will help educate us dumb Americans to some rhetorical and literal international knowledge.-thanks Chris-Pocketthis (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, I finally found the search engine. I've always had a problem finding things that are hiding in the open!  But thanks for the link anyway; I'm sure that will make it even easier for this old luddite. I'm kind of in multi-tasking mode right now (also something I'm not much good at!), so it might take me a couple of days to focus and come up with exactly what to say in the stub article.  But do it I will!  Cheers, ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

love these clouds
Chris, besides the obvious beauty of the sky here, is there anything going on of any meteorological interest? You can click on it to enlarge it. I call it: 3D-Clouds - Thanks, Jessie - Pocketthis (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Jesse; The low thick clouds look like multiple layers of lenticular stratocumulus heaped in a way that makes them look like towering cumulus congestus. If they were racing across the sky, then there was plenty of horizontal wind shear causing the lenticular formations.  There may have also been convective wind currents giving the clouds more vertical development than usual. The higher layer of altocumulus shows no unusual features that I can see. Hope that helps :) ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The main reason I stay in this desert is the sky. Never in my life have I seen such beauty, and ever changing glorious beauty at that. It's never the same twice, unless it's one of those days when there just isn't a cloud in the sky. When we look west in these shots taken at my ranch, we are looking across the western edge of the Mojave toward the Inland Empire just over the other side of the ridge that the sun sets on, and then beyond that is Los Angeles. The ocean being the key ingredient in this unique setting, is what gives me the startling sunsets and twilights I see here so often. Also, there is always orographic lift occurring when there is any cloud activity because of the San Bernardino mountains, and unique geography as seen from my perspective. Love it - thanks-Jessie - Pocketthis (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

New article
Hi Jessie; here's the text to the new article I attempted to create.

Étage (meteorology)
In meteorology, an étage is any of three main altitude levels in the troposphere where certain cloud types usually form. The term is derived from the French word which means floor or storey, as in the floor of a multi-storey building. With the exception of the low étage, the altitude range of each level varies according to latitude from Earth's equator to the arctic and antarctic regions at the poles.

The high étage ranges from altitudes of 10000 to 25000 ft in the polar regions, 16500 to 40000 ft in the temperate regions and 20000 to 60000 ft in the tropical region. The major high-level cloud types comprise cirrus, cirrocumulus, and cirrostratus.

The middle étage extends from 6500 ft above surface at any latitude as high as 13000 ft near the poles, 23000 ft at mid latitudes, and 25000 ft in the tropics. Altocumulus and Altostratus are the main cloud types found in the middle levels of the troposphere.

The low étage is found from surface up to 6500 ft at all latitudes. Principle cloud types found in the low levels of the troposphere include stratocumulus, stratus, and small fair weather cumulus. Several additional types usually form in the low or middle étages but typically extend into all three altitude levels. These include nimbostratus, towering cumulus congestus, and cumulonimbus.

When I followed the instructions, I was led to what looked like a page to post the new article. However, the article doesn't appear to have taken. The instructions don't give any troubleshooting advice for when the attempt goes wrong. If you think there's anything else you can tell me so I can get it right, please do, but I think we have gotten to the point where I should tell you I have been diagnosed with mild Asperger's syndrome. Essentially I'm near genius at doing a few things, have average learning ability with many other things, and have some significant learning disabilities as well. I have taught myself how to do basic editing and citations on Wikipedia simply by studying and emulating what I see on the edit history pages. However, I have had no success at learning any other Wikipedia skills where I have to try and decipher what looks like a lot of incoherent jargon on all of Wikipedia's instruction pages. These pages may be OK for everyone else, but I seem to be semi-dyslexic when it come to their instructions. If my learning disability continues to get in way, I might have to ask you to post the new article for me. It won't bother me at all if you get credit for the new article instead of me.ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * First allow me to tell you that I love what you wrote. That will be a great stub, and will educate a lot of folks to a word they didn't know. We all have our crosses to bear, and you carry yours pretty well. I am going to direct you to a new page that I just wrote this week: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coachella_Valley_Mountains_Conservancy Perhaps it will help you see the simplicity in the basic design and layout. If you are stressed over this, and wish me to take it from here, I will be happy to copy your text, and write the stub. Just let me know buddy. There's no cupie doll, or Stuffed Panda bears given out for writing articles, so the credit is actually in our own mind. If I have to do this for you, we will both know in our minds who's article it is. Your Pal - Pocketthis (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou for your help and encouraging words! The good news is it looks like I jumped to conclusions about being unsuccessful. All my new stub needed was some time to be officially reviewed by admin who passed it for inclusion in the Wikipedia canon. So there it is, my first self-created article! I've now linked it to the cloud article as you suggested where "etage" is mentioned for the first time in the intro. As it turns out, I had already equated "etage" with "altitude level" near the top of the article, which has me wondering if I should duplicate the link elsewhere in the article in case some readers miss the term and the link in the intro. What's your advice on that? ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Nice job on the article. Looks great. As far as bracketing the word in additional areas: absolutely OK. You can bracket it in any other paragraph you feel it would be beneficial. As long as you don't do it 10 times, no one is going to give you any shit about it. Also, you might want to think about a photo to go along with the article. You know best what you'd be looking for, and you can find many examples to choose from in Commons. If you need help figuring out how to place the photo where you want it, you can go to my latest article and see exactly what I did to get my photo where it is. Of course, if you need any help with that, just let me know. Good work buddy!-Pocketthis (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for your feedback Jesse. I DO want to expand my Wikipedia skills beyond basic text editing, but it's going to be a slow road. I'm just now putting some finishing touches on the cloud article so I can try to nominate it for a GA review. I'll try to do it by myself, but if it gets tossed back to me for incorrect procedure, then I'll probably have to get you to help me even with that. Last year, I tried to get a peer review of the article to see if the bigwigs would give the article an interim B grade on account of all the improvements that have been made. However, that got tossed back to me because of some miniscule formatting or messaging error that I couldn't detect or figure out. Whatever Wikipedia is for aspiring editors, user friendly it AIN'T!!! So the cloud article continues to languish at C-grade because I tend to stumble through all the hoops that an editor has to go through to get an article reviewed by admin or whomever. Once I get all that done, then I'll have a look at Wikipedia Commons and maybe some of the other technophile hangouts that I currently know nothing about!

BTW, an editor who works on the French language cloud article has suggest the title of this article should be 'Cloud étage'. It would further clarify the subject of the article and is more in accorance with WMO terminology. I noticed when I first posted my new article that the title Etage (without 'Cloud' or the accented e) had already been inserted ahead of what I put in. I still don't know how to create or modifiy an article title, so maybe you could help me with that if you agree with the proposed change. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply

 * I really like Pierre, he has been a big help to me on Commons, However, in this case there are two issues I have. #1: If you're going to make any "title" changes to any article, an admin would have to do it, as the article is "Title Locked", as they all are once you save them that way. If they didn't lock the titles, just think of the mayhem the vandals could do with that...lol. #2: I disagree with Pierre this time. I like the title the way it is, because it is specific to weather and clouds. If you do a change to just Entage, you will have to do a complete French dictionary description of the word. No thanks to that idea. My advice: Leave it be. Someday, someone will write an article just of the word Engae perhaps, and then add a link to your page for when relating to weather. However, this isn't a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia, so the dictionary definition without the specific meteorology reference is kind of useless. Leave it be. Pocketthis (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * However, after reading Pierre's post again, I see no real issue with changing the name to "Cloud Enatge". You can still bracket the word in your article to take the reader to your newly titled stub. You will need to contact an admin to make the change should you decide to do it. All the best.....- Pocketthis (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OR.....you could write a "new article" with the new title, copy and paste all the text from the original, and then put a quick delete request in the old article. You can then wipe the old article of all text except a link to your new article, and the delete request. Sometimes I amaze even myself!.....lol.Pocketthis (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! I couldn't quite follow the logic of your previous message. I think we're now agreed if the stub is to be specifically about the meterological use of the term etage (not entage!), it should be specified in the title. When I first created the article, I tried to give it the title 'Etage (meteorology)' which follows a pattern I've seen in other Wikipedia articles, but someone got in ahead of me and created the current title. I'll see if I can figure out the instructions you've given me for changing the title. I'll get back to you if I run into any more road-blocks; the risk of which is pretty high given my past track record and current level of technophobia! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Talking about "the impaired", just see my spelling for Etage.."entage"...lol. Have fun -Pocketthis (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Etage
Hi:

I did a little editing of your article. According to the WMO, the exact term is "cloud étage". I think it would be good to rename the article as Etage is not very specific to clouds.

P.S. : Last point, please do not overcategorize. For instance, Clouds category is a subcategory of Meteorology, no need to add Meteorology as it is redundant.

Pierre cb (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your imput and changes you made. I think I have a good knowledge of the subjects of the articles I try to work on, but I also have come to realise my editing skills are weak, either because of a lack of training or maybe just a lack of aptitude.  So I always welcome help and intervention form others who have strong editing skills.  I also agree with you about the title, and I'll try to change it according to your suggestion.  If I can't figure out the procedure for changing the title, I have someone I can turn to for help. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Renaming is easy, you use the "Rename" menu at the top of the article. If you decide to do it and since this your article, this should not be a problem except if the name chosen is already a redirection (by the way, you do not have to use the é, e would do fine). In general, if an article is not yours, or the change of name can be contested, then you can use a "move request" to open a discussion about it. See Requested moves for further details. Pierre cb (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Elephant Man or Cloud Mountain?
Chris thought you would like this one. Another unusual twilight from my area.......or is it. See if you can figure out its secret..:-)

Pocketthis (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting pic to say the least! With no discernable horizon, I can't begin to figure out what was happening.  It doesn't even correspond to any established cloud type that I can identify. So I'll need you to clue me in on this one.


 * It is simply Upside-Down. :-) Pocketthis (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Chris, this was the original. Pocketthis (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

On a differnt topic, I'm undecided about modifying the title for the etage article. It seems to be serving the purpose for which it was intended, and right now I'm focused more on trying to make further improvments to the main cloud article. I think it's better than a C-class, but nobody at admin seems to want to consider whether it should be upgraded to a B-class. Do you know of any way to get it reviewed? Another GAN like the one foisted on me last year would get their attention, but I don't think I have the academic rigour of thought or organization to bring it to GA status by myself. The highest mark I ever got for a university level essay was a B, so I'll settle for a B-grade for this article if I can figure out how to get it there. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This is all I know about getting the rating up on an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment Sorry I'm not much of a help here, but I never gave a shit what Wikipedia thinks of an article, as long as I enjoy reading it, is all that has ever mattered. I can tell you my friend, that between your science and my photos, that is "one ass kicking" article. Be proud of it. You should be. You inspired me to start grabbing shots for that article. You are responsible for that article's info and beauty. P.S. Don't stress yourself about Etage. It's fine the way it is. If Pierre is concerned enough about it, he will do it for you. If he doesn't, it wasn't all that important anyway. Relax Pocketthis (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thankyou again for the kind words, my good cloud buddy :) I guess there's a little bit of personal and professional pride involved with wanting to see the article upgraded to at least a B. Maybe a bit of paranoia too, if that's not too strong a word in this case.  I DO believe the article is very good; certainly much better than it's lame counterpart in the World Book Encyclopedia.  However, as long as it's only a C, someone might come along in the future and undo all our good work just to try and satisfy some administrator who may know a lot about "good editing", but piss-all about clouds.  I figure a GA or B article is more likely to be left alone in the future than a C article.  Re: the etage article, Pierre has made some improvements, so I think it can stand as is for now.  Cheers! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

New Challenge

 * Chris ole buddy....this article has been asking for a meteorologist to help out there for over a year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation_types Think of all the fun you've had here. I would love to see you play in another one. If you're too busy, I'll certainly understand. Perhaps you can take a quick look at it, and see what you think. Thanks - Pocketthis (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 * Hey, howzitgoin'!? I haven't gone anywhere near as far into the subject of precipitation as I have clouds, but after giving the article a quick scan, I think I might be able to work on a few bits on a time permitting basis.  I also need to compare it to another Wikipedia article on the same subject to see where they are similar and where they are different.  I wonder if there is a need for 2 articles, although I can see that one focuses more on classification and the other more on other aspects.  So I'll see what I can come up with in the near future. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't know there was another article. If they are really the same thing, we can petition to have them combined. What's the name of the other one? Thanks for looking - Pocketthis (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind Chris...I did a search on Precipitation. This site is a joke sometimes. WTF do we 5 rain articles for? I got dizzy reading them all. lol... - Pocketthis (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of cloud types, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cirrus and Stratus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Two Hearts (Jackie Evancho album) and The Ride (Nelly Furtado album)
Please do not add unsourced recording years or dates to album articles. This type of addition (along with unsourced genres) is already a significant issue from IP addresses.  Ss 112  12:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Photo caption
Chris, please write a cloud related photo caption for me on this photo so I can put it somewhere. It was taken about 12 minutes before sunset. Hope all is well, thanks in advance buddy. Click on it and take a good look. It is pretty interesting and unique, especially the mountain like cloud structures. Pocketthis (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Pocketthis; I'm adding my customary type of enhancements to the photo caption you provided, meaning that I've added technical information about the genus, species and variety of the main cloud type without making significant changes to the prose. I trust that's what you were looking for. In the meantime, I've come across a pictorial cloud classification chart that I'd like you to compare to the one we already have in the tropospheric section of the cloud article. I'd like to know if you think this one would be any improvement over the current table. In it's favor, the clouds are depicted in a more 'photographic' way compared to the more stylized depictions in the current chart. The only reservation I have about this potential alternative chart is the nimbostratus cloud is greatly compressed horizontally. Also, I've pulled this alternative version directly off the internet; it's not part of the Wikipedia Commons collection, so I don't know if it's even eligible to be appropriated by Wikipedia Commons for possible use. It might be protected by copywrite. Here's the url for the alternative chart:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=cloud+types&tbm=isch&imgil=ZlancLWF1Eeh5M%253A%253BzxxU0GYX_GEAuM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fmedia.bom.gov.au%25252Fsocial%25252Fblog%25252F895%25252Fwhats-that-cloud%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=ZlancLWF1Eeh5M%253A%252CzxxU0GYX_GEAuM%252C_&usg=__u_LZRu_5-EujBfW9WpnNo8C_Uts%3D&biw=1331&bih=680&ved=0ahUKEwjh5eynn8vVAhVU0WMKHVV9A1MQyjcIgQE&ei=jZKLWaHrLNSijwPV-o2YBQ#imgrc=ZlancLWF1Eeh5M:
 * Here buddy, it was already uploaded, I just improved the version that was there.

Perhaps with your expertise in those areas you could have a look at it and let me know what you think.
 * Chris. I really like the chart. No sweat to upload it. It is from an Australian publication. No copyright issues. Just upload it as a foreign public image. Really nice chart. I've been working on a business idea and the trademark issues for it. I forgot to put your page on my watchlist I was so busy, and very little sleep. Sorry about that. Chart needs to be in the cloud article. If you have any issues about uploading it, contact: Commonwealth of Australia 2012, Bureau of Meteorology (ABN 92 637 533 532)-title= Cloud Types. If you contact them, I am sure they would be flattered, and offer to upload it for you right to commons. However, since it is from Australia, it is my understanding that there are no "world wide copyrights". Upload away! :-) Pocketthis (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. The new chart is now in the Wikipedia article! :D ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure how to edit this caption. It seems to be formatted somewhat differently than the photo captions I've edited in the main article. In any case, I think my revision would read something like this: "A layer of stratocumulus stratiformis perlucidus (flat stratocumulus with a small break in the cloud cover) hiding the setting sun with a background layer of stratocumulus cumulogenitus (formed by the partial spreading of cumulus) that resembles a distant mountain range behind some actual hills or small mountains". You can make any modifications to the caption that you think might help.ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed you formatted your photo-caption request in a way that I can insert my embellishments directly in, so I'm doing that just in case you haven't done so already. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Twilight zoned
Very clever caption! But I can see why my offering wasn't what you were looking for. Unfortunately I'm not usuallty poetic with this subject; strictly a hard-core technical guy! As for the alternate cloud chart, I Googled cloud types images and found that the stylized cloud charts are more popular than those that portray the cloud types in a more photographic way, based on the ranking of the returns on Google. The most popular chart doesn't even portray all 10 main cloud types, only 8 or 9. So I guess we just continue to give the public what they want! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL...Who said it wasn't what I wanted?? I can't take a few days off like you do?...lol. Thanks Chris, great facts about the image. To me, it looks like we're inside God's head, and he opens his eyelid just a bit at twilight, and this is what he sees. P.S. I am an atheist. :-). So would you look for a spot in the cloud article to fit this in? It's one of my favorite shots. If not, don't stress over it buddy.Pocketthis (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure I can find a place for the photo in the article; it's too unique to ignore! When I saw the same photo on your user page with the "Twilight zoned" title, I thought you had gone with that in preference to my more technical version. I didn't know it was for the article, so it was all just a misunderstanding! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes..lol. The "Twilight Zoned" bit, was how I felt looking at it. :-) I would have named it that, but there are weirdos in commons that go around changing the names of those they feel are dubious. Pocketthis (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Your photo with an improved version of my caption is now in the article in the "species and varieties" section which seems thematically the best fit! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks good there, and I love the fact that you mentioned the mountain shaped clouds. I did a double take when I saw that sunset. I thought we had a volcano, and new mountains had erupted. Pocketthis (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome Jessie; that photo definitely belongs in the article, as does the new cloud chart. We've both helped each other out during this latest exchange of messages, so I reckon we're a totally kick-ass team working together to improve the article! :D ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Mutual respect is a wonderful thing my friend. We are a good team for sure, but more important to me, I enjoy helping "you", and working with you. I have from the first day we spoke. A lot of editors, (and one President), can learn a lot from us. Thanks Chris...Pocketthis (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou too Jessie; your sentiments are totally reciprocated! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cloud
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cloud 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 Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cloud
The article Cloud you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cloud for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cloud
The article Cloud you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cloud for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Chris, can you give me the technical description for these clouds?
Hope all is well buddy. I see you finally have received your GA approval! Congrats! Good things come to those that work hard :-) Jessie Eastland(talk) 20:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Jessie; I would say those are cumulus fractus clouds (ragged heaps) formed by low-level convective heating of the air. Yes, it was a very long journey to GA status.  I first came across the article back in 2010 shortly after going online at home for the first time.  It was very incomplete and very out of date.  But as I found out when I started working on it, my knowledge of the subject was not matched by my knowledge of writing and editing, so it took many re-writes, 2 GANS, 2 peer reviews, and some at-home help of a few friends and acquaintances who have strong backgrounds in writing to get the article too where it is now.  Hopefully, it will remain more-or-less tamper-proof for the foreseeable future! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the legal description Chris, you're the best as always. Also thanks for including so much of my work on the page. I'm honored to be part of a successful venture with my 'head in the clouds' buddy here. See you next time I need so de-fog a cloud. Soon you will have more of my photos here than the article itself. Please feel free to delete them if you choose to. My feelings won't be hurt at all. :-) Jessie Eastland (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome Jessie. One of my main missions in life is to help others understand clouds better, whether through the article or on a more individual basis.  I think you are a great photographer of clouds and your contributions also greatly help to illuminate the subject.  Obviously there has to be some kind of upper limit as to how many photos there should be with the article, but I'm inclined to accept any submission that illustrates the subject in any way that doesn't duplicate photos already included.  There's always the possibility that another editor on the Wiki meteorology team might want to impose a limit before I do, but we don't seemed to have reached that point yet.ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just bumped into this post of yours this morning. Thanks for the compliment, however, just for the record here, I wasn't asking for tech info on Heaven's Gate for use in any cloud article; I wanted the info for future placing in an unrelated area. As you can see, I deleted the photo anyway last week along with a few others that I had recently uploaded. I won't be putting quality photos up on Wikipedia any longer. When my brother was uploading my photos, I told him which ones I wouldn't mind having free licensing with, and at times we shared the same IP address and user name. I was only on mostly to talk to you, and to seek out spots that uploaded photos of mine may have benefited this place. He got himself in shit here, and now that I have uploaded a few on my own, in my own name, I realize that I can only upload photos "I could care less about". The reason is: Wikipedia Commons' policy says that not only can anyone download a photo from the repository for commercial use (I have no issue with that), but they can crop, color, mutilate, stretch, and destroy any photo they download, and since Wiki has a policy that the author must be "credited", my mutilated work ends up on some website with "my name on it". lol. No thanks. Not only that, but the administrators there have a habit of downloading photos, reshaping them, and then uploading them with my name on it, and their name on it as well, as the "up-loader". No thanks to that one either. A photo is a work of art, and it should not be allowed to be messed with PERIOD. I don't care where someone wants to use it, but I want it in its original form if my name is going to be on it. So the days of me contributing my best work here is over. Hey....want to see some cool clouds? Check out my new site: https://skytrek.life - Jessie Eastland (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello again, and happy Fourth of July! We have our national holiday up here in the Great White North on July 1 just so we can be a bit ahead of you haha! Sorry to hear it hasn't been working out for you posting photos on Wikipedia. No doubt you're better off having your own website where you make the rules and protocols. Those are some very cool pics you have there.  I've been taking some fairly good photos of some noctilucent clouds which I don't think you normally see at your latitude.  I'm taking the pics around 3-4 AM using just my phone-camera, so they're probably not as good as what you take, but if you're interested, I can download them to my computer and see if I can figure out how to send some to you. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Would love to see them Chris. Send them to my website email address:  Perhaps I can put them in Photoshop and improve on the digital quality, and then wisk them back to you. It would be my pleasure. Jessie Eastland (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. You read, and I look at pictures. Everything technical I've learned about clouds, I've learned from you. Thanks so much for educating the world as to CLOUDS Jessie Eastland (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Noctilucent photos
Hi Jessie; sorry it's taking so long to e-mail you the noctilucent photos. I was supposed to get together with some cumputer-savvy types this past week who were going to show me the procedures for getting the pics from my camera to your e-mail, but the visit didn't happen. I'll see if I can teach myself using google on a time-permitting basis, but I'm a very slow learn at this kind of thing and I have little memory retention for what info I come across, so this may take a while longer. But I will persevere at it! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC) LOL guess what, he site you gave me is behind a firewall and I can't access it. Can you send me a message with your email address in the text or an attachment? Many thanks! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC) It looks like I did't provide you with an adequate introduction to noctilucent clouds when I sent you the photos. I guess I assumed you were aware of them because of their write-up in the cloud article, but maybe you hadn't checked out that part of the article. Anyway, I'm glad you can appreciate the photos for what they are; amateur pics that show the main characteristics of this cloud type, but not of professional quality. Cheers! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Relax Chris. No worries. I would like to teach you how to simplify that procedure. There is an email address at that website I gave you above: (https://skytrek.life). If you'd like to email me your phone number, I'll be happy to take the stress out of learning how to mobilize your photos. I don't want to leave my phone number here, but once we're in contact on my web's email address, we can exchange info. Or, if you prefer, we can just email info back and forth. Look forward to hearing from you. Jessie Eastland (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * lol, you are the first person to tell me they can't get to my website. Email me at: skytrek.life@gmail.com Jessie Eastland (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Even a bigger LOL is that I left the "r" out of skytrek in the URL I left you above. It's not your computer, it's my typo. :-) I fixed it above now, but I also left you my email address in the last post. I'm sure now that one of these days I'll see an email from you there. Jessie Eastland (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thought you might find it amusing that I had no idea what to look for in the photos you sent me until I just now looked up Noctilucent Clouds. I was viewing your photos in a general matter, and my advice was strictly from a photography perspective, and never even knew what I was supposed to be looking for in the photos. Ice crystals 50 miles up must be pretty cool to see in person. Thanks for trying to educate an ignorant photographer to a natural rare occurrence. Your pal→ Jessie Eastland (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. You read, and I look at pictures. Everything technical I've learned about clouds, I've learned from you. Thanks so much for educating the world as to CLOUDS Jessie Eastland (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of regions of Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French River ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_regions_of_Canada check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_regions_of_Canada?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of regions of Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boreal ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_regions_of_Canada check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_regions_of_Canada?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Towering cloud
Jessie Eastland (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Chris, I thought you'd like this one. Hope all is well.


 * Excellent photo Jessie; thanks for sharing it. I'm doing well, but I miss the conversations we used to have when we were both active on the cloud article.  I'm not as active as I used to be either, but I still occasionally find something new to add or clarify. I reached the big seven-o last Friday; the party was a blast and I feel all of 40.   Many say I only look that old, so maybe I'll still be doing this editing at 90! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A mere child, as I will be 71 in less than 40 days. Folks say I look at least 75, so I may not be here with you at 90. Happy birthday! :- Jessie Eastland (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. I put this in Atmospheric convection, so maybe you can start playing over there. Lots of room for improvement there. Make that article your new challenge, and I'll see you there.Jessie Eastland (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL I wouldn't pay too much attention to what others say (unless it's favorable of course), I figure you're only as old as you feel! I've looked at Atmospheric convection and I can see some quick fixes that would involve putting in some info about the relationship between clouds and convection.  However, I don't think I would go too deeply into the cloud connection because that's not the purpose of the article.  The subjects of cloud and convection are closely related but not the same, so I'll have to study the article closely to see if there are significant improvements I can make beyond just clouds.  I'm not actually that much of an expert on some areas of the subject, so I might have to educate myself a bit before I do anything beyond the quick fixes; I'm hopeful that would be well within my abilities.  It looks like your birthday falls around the end of April, so I'll send you a greeting closer to the day :) ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * May 15th actually. I wasn't advocating cloud associations, I just know it's in your ballpark of expertise, so have at it! Jessie Eastland (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've checked out the atmospheric convection article more closely and it looks like the main fix it needs is to be rewritten in more basic English. I don't see any major omissions of fact, although as I say, convection per se is a secondary area of knowledge for me, so I'll have to do some additional research on the topic before deciding if more factual stuff needs to be added.  Right now I'm caught up in spring cleaning and gardening, and I'm finishing up work on a couple of other articles, but I should be able to start work on this one fairly soon. Cheers! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cloud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cirrus ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Cloud check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Cloud?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

History of Western art music template
I empathize with your comments on the template talk. The issue here does not seem to be as much with the editor who reverted you, as it does with the lack of continuity in the template as a whole. I saw some of your work in Dates of classical music eras and I'm wondering if you'd be willing to work on that article with me and build off of it a revised template to present at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music? There are many other issues with the template, Galant music is formatted in such a way that it appears as an era, the 2nd Viennese School is included (for some reason?), Neoromanticism is missing, most of the end dates for the later movements are rather arbitrary and should probably be avoided all together, the template should really just be named "History of Wester art music" – the list goes on. This seems to be a symptom of the awful articles that already exist for most of these movements, I mean what is this? In any respect, the Classical Music WP articles have their strengths in great composer aritlces, but the era and period ones are noticebly behind. I have plans to get Medieval music to GA eventually, but am going to have to work at some of the smaller genres first like Ars Nova, Ars Antiqua etc. In any respect, I think the best chance for a stable table that everyone is happy with is creating a solid Dates of classical music eras article. Aza24 (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your empathetic message! I would be very interested in helping you work on the Wikipedia article about music eras. I think I have a good knowledge of the content for this article, but I might need help from you when it comes to some of the procedures for upgrading the article.  I was successfully able to upgrade one of Wikipedia's meteorological articles from a C to a GA a couple of years ago.  However, it took me a very long time to do it (despite having worked professionally in meteorology eons ago!) because I had very little help or skill with the writing and editing.  I'm not a peofessional when it comes to classical music, but I'm a fairly decent ameteur player and I'm well read on the subject.  I located the editor who didn't like my edits.  I haven't communicated with him directly yet, but I don't think there's any deliberate malfeasance on his part.  He posted that upgrading postmodernism from a movement to an era would require a cited source.  This seems reasonable enough, although is raises the question as to whether postmodernism should be listed as even a movenment as it is now if there's no cited source.  I guess  it's a matter of the chigher the claimed status for something, the greater the burden of proof.  I'll have another look at that article youve proposed to upgrade and we can start exchanging ideas for improvement then progress to doing some work on it, maybe a whole lot of work.  Just one heads up, I don't usually work very quickly on anything.  I think slowly and I have terrible keyboard skills.  Other than that, everything should be fine! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 11:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not getting back to you, been rather distracted lately trying to clean up the mess of articles that is our Medieval/Renaissance composers on WP (their art and literature contemporaries have received far more attention thus far!) No worries on your work pace, with my to do list ever growing I wouldn't be that quick either. I agree that the editor (Francis, we might as well use his name) was acting in good faith. I've worked with him in the past and while he can be rather quick to hit the revert button, he is fairly knowledgeable and prolific with his contributions to the site. Thinking about what the "Dates of classical music eras" might look like, I suspect our biggest issues will develop with the more modern side of the spectrum since scholars seem less interested in classifying current music than they do for that of the past. The Grout (which I've read some of) and Carter book on the page already will definitely be helpful sources. I will probably be using some sources from Grove music online as well, so if need be I can email you them (since they require a subscription to fully access). I'll look around for more sources tomorrow, since it's rather late here. Aza24 (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not taking too lightly to your threat to initiate a revert war ("... will just keep taking the reverts down ..."). I'm glad you're using the talk page now, which, for this topic, should have happened much earlier, but for clarity: the sequence, explained at WP:BRD is: bold edit → revert → discussion; not: bold edit → threat to initiate a revert war if the bold edit doesn't stick. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? No one was “threatening to intimate a revert war”, stop trying to explode a situation that doesn't even exist. All that happened was Christ removed two schools, since there are no other schools on the template and removed postmodernism since the meaning is currently unclear.You reverted both, fine, but you went to the talk and changed the subject, while not even addressing why you reverted - a pointless and counterproductive decision. Aza24 (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

CSD for Template:Western classical music periods and eras
I've noticed that you've asked for Template:Western classical music periods and eras to be deleted. As the only contributor of the page, you may simply tag it with WP:CSD, where it will be deleted by a passing administrator soon. Thanks! ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 08:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I've cut and pasted that code you gave me onto the newly re-blanked page of the unwanted template. I trust that's the correct procedure since I can't see any other way of tagging it.ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Lol it looks like someone had deleted it already Chris. When you pasted the code you created the tempalte again :) no worries though – I'm sure an admin will delete it soon. Aza24 (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Ahahaha you did recreate it. The code to request deletion is . WP:CSD is just the link to the relevant guideline.  ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 12:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well thankyou for clarifying that! I don't understand any of the theory behind the creation or deletion of templates, so I just did what I thought you were telling me to do based on what you seemed to be saying.  I'll put in the proper code now that you've provided it.ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Ahahahahaha that's not it either. I'm confusing you, my bad. All you need to know that it's tagged and will get deleted soon. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 14:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * @Aza24: Lol what can I say? I'm just trying to follow instructions, and I was clearly instructed to transfer the code I was given onto the blank page of the unwanted template. When I went onto the edit page, the blank template was clearly still there, so I carried out the instructions and now awaiting the result.  The admin you were talking to didn't remove the template for whatever reason, he just gave me the code to initiate the procedure myself.


 * Thankyou for your comments about the beginnings of classical music. You've made some good points that I've duly noted.  Still, at the risk of becoming tedious about it, I have some more thoughts about the subject. Some of it may just be elaborations of what I've already said, so I'm begging your indulgence (as per an old saying!).  My main challenge as a Wikipedia editor is I tend to be more a free-thinker than a binary thinker (good/bad, right/wrong etc).  Free thought is usually encouraged in university, but working on Wikipedia is rather like going back to high school where everything is strictly governed by established conventions whether they make sense to the free-thinker or not (and given the nature of all good encyclopedias, I understand that's the way it has to be).  In the case of classical music, I know fully well that the established majority (but not universal) convention dictates that it began with the fall of the Roman Empire.  What doesn't seem to be widely or fully considered (assuming various articles I've read are correct) is that most medieval Gregorian chant, the supposed beginning of Western classical music, is just a compilation (by one of the popes called Gregory) of early Christian music from the 300's AD and maybe earlier.  In other words, the earliest "classical" music was imported by Pope Gregory whomever from ancient Rome whose music was supposedly a continuation of ancient Greece.


 * Being the free thinker that I am, I liken classical music to a tree. Certain music from the ancient Greco-Roman culture can be viewed as the roots (an idea that didn't originate with me), early medieval music as the lower trunk, and the classical music from ca. 1150 AD on as the upper trunk and limbs.  Looked at that way, I guess the fall of the West Roman Empire can be view as ground level. Above that is the part of the tree that can bee seen.  Below that is the part that can't be seen, and whose musical counterpart is the Ambrosian chant and other late Roman music that is no longer performed (except, as noted, when repackaged as Gregorian chant, a rather "inconvenient truth"!).


 * I agree with you the Wikipedia article about ancient music in general doesn't belong on the template, much less the article on prehistoric music. Both articles are geographically and culturally too diverse, and the latter is probably too early (a possible but likely unprovable exception being whatever music there may have been in the prehistoric but maybe proto-western Minoan culture). However, I'm wondering if you've seen the Wikipedia article about the music of ancient Greece?  I haven't checked it fully for quality or references yet, but it is much more Eurocentric and seems to makes a case for at least some of that music to be considered the roots of Western classical music; definitely proto-Western and maybe proto-classical (interestingly, historians often use the term "classical" to describe ancient Greco-Roman culture, albeit in an extra-musical context).  But then again, the analogy of the tree comes into play here.  Are the roots of a tree of any value as part of the overall tree, or are they to be discarded (as is usually the case) when the tree is harvested, just as conventional scholership has largely discarded ancient western music as having any "classical" relevance or value? (except, as noted, when it is rehashed as Gregorian chant!)


 * That all said, if the alternative article checks out, do you think it's title could possibly have a place on the template as a "lead-in" to the main list that links to the other articles on classical music. I don't think its inclusion would be taken as a defiance of the old convention since I'm no longer proposing any change to the 500 AD date, but simply as a lead-in to a list of more core-related articles starting with that date.. If you definitely oppose it I'll not talk about it any further nor attempt at any additions of this article to the template. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This is how to ping. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 14:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * There's no need to worry about becoming "tedious" about it! If it were up to me I would characterize Medieval music at beginning in the 800s at the earliest, but more likely the 1000s. Given that the template is called "Western classical music eras" – I would be hesitant in adding in a "roots" section. This is only because it might add a layer of confusion to a typical reader who would see it and think that classical music began in Ancient Greece, which is not typically the standard. That being said, I think this (along with Music of ancient Rome) would fit well in the Medieval music template I had mentioned earlier. The other reason that its inclusion in the template could prove problematic is because the concise and basic nature of the template prevents the explanation for the intricacies in the beginning of the Medieval era; to that point this is undoubtedly a topic which should be thoroughly addressed in the Medieval music article and likely the Dates of classical music eras one as well. The Music of ancient Greece article itself seems to be ok, but then again, our music period articles aren't much better at the moment. You may find pages 1 and 2 of Hoppin's book interesting. He seems to almost argue that "real" Medieval music, as in the real substance of the era, began in the 1000s, similar to what you're talking about. He then proceeds to devote only a chapter to the music from c. 500 – 1000, although I suppose he is still devoting pages to it nonetheless. In my mind Medieval music doubles as a period and a movement. A period of time from 500 – 1000, until which it becomes a better defined movement with real "substance" – if you will. Aza24 (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks like I'm the one taking a while to answer this time, but I've been looking up quite a bit about ancient Greco-Roman music and early medieval music to try and see first hand how much they're different and how much they're alike. My impression so far is that they have at least as many similarities as differences, and that medieval music has as much in common with ancient Western music as it does with what we now identify as Western classical music.  If ancient Western music is stylistically and chronologically too far removed from the Common Practice Period to be on the same template, I would have to say your idea to have a separate template for ancient and medieval music makes the most sense.  Since the latter era (especially the early medieval) can be viewed as a transition between ancient and renaissance/common practice, it can also remain on the template for classical music as well, although mainly, I believe, on the strength of the "high" medieval music that came mostly after 1150 AD.  In case you haven't seen it yet, here is a Youtube video done by an early music ensemble (really early!) that has been carefully and with much research reconstructing some of the music of ancient Greece.  I'd be interested to know what you think of it.  A few days ago, I characterized ancient music as the part of the Western musical "tree" that's below "ground level" (fall of the West Roman Empire) and therefore not "seen" or performed.  However, it now looks to me like that might be starting to change. And wouldn't you know it, if I decide to add any recordings of authentic ancient Greoco-Roman music to my collection, it will likely be part my collection of classical music. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hOK7bU0S1Y ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Polar mesospheric clouds
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Polar mesospheric clouds&mdash;has been proposed for merging with Noctilucent cloud. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Cirrus cloud
I have nominated Cirrus cloud for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)