User talk:Jason Rees/Archive2

Yasi
That was the format right. I remember an Indian ocean cyclone article like that. 2008 Yemen cyclone. Though it was officially called Deep Depression ARB 02, the page has a different name. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Bidgee (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yasi
OK, I have updated all four places where Yasi's best strength is repeated.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 18:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yasi
Thanks for the message.

Yasi was very interesting lol. I stayed at a hotel on The Strand in Townsville, pretty much couldn't sleep at all on Wednesday night as that was the peak of Yasi in Townsville (I think the winds in Townsville peaked at like 140km/h gusts, could have been a little higher, I couldn't check at the time). I did get a lot of pictures, however it's all of trees over roads and a random roof being located on the beach (no idea where that came from). I got stuck in Townsville for a couple of days with no power so I helped a little with the cleanup (area around all the hotels was very messy). I'm guessing the storm surge came all the way up to the footpath as wet sand was located as far up as that, as well as on trunk of a couple of random trees (the wind probably kicked the sand up that far though). What amazed me was how dark hotel corridors can be at 2pm when the power is out. Completely pitch black, that was kinda creepy.

It was certainly more interesting than Hamish, which when I went to Mackay, seemed to instantly change direction. -_- Plus it only ended up costing around $1000, flights included. I was going to go to Mission Beach, but there were a number of things which prevented that, and given Yasi hit that place directly, I'm probably lucky that I didn't. At this stage I wouldn't be surprised if Queensland has another Severe Impact in store for this season, I doubt I'll be able to get more time off work for that though, as it was I lied to my boss in order to chase Yasi, lol. Cyclonica (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Epi 2003
The 50kt winds appear to be gusts, GP states that the 35kt sustained winds were derrived from gusts using a 1.4 reduction factor. I think it's safe to lower the intensity to 35kt. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclones
Good evening Jason! long time no message. haha. well I am now busy studying the weather thats why I can't edit wikipedia. can you please help me? I have a problem. Can you define to me what is the CONCLUSION IN STUDYING TROPICAL CYCLONES? you can post it at my talk page. i will wait for you in the next 24 hours. hahaha. because this is an Investigatory project in our school. 4th year high school is so hard. help me friend! Shalom! Have a blessed day :) God bless you. --jpuligan_12 (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Morakot rainfall
I fixed it in the typhoon article...but that means it also needs to be fixed within the Morakot article. I haven't added it into the wettest by country list yet, so it merely needs to be added there. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Is something missing from the tropical cyclone forecast model article?
I've put this article up for a Good Article nomination, and wanted the opinion of someone who normally edits Southern Hemispheric storm articles to see if I'm missing anything. I'm worried that I might be missing information which could be available regarding how the Aussies or those at Reunion forecast TCs...though I did find a tidbit about their storm surge model from 1990, but otherwise didn't find much else regarding Australia. I just recently added JMA and JTWC related information into the article yesterday. Any input would be appreciated. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While the first and last link were interesting, I don't see them as helpful to the article. I'll do a search through your middle to links.  Something tells me we may already cover Reunion inadvertently through one of the book references.  Fiji and Australia I'm not so sure about though.  Thanks for the help.  Thegreatdr (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Odile
Please see User talk:HurricaneSpin. &mdash; RHaworth 09:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Bebeng
Oh wow...that's interesting. They nixed it quite fast. But yea, that's a reliable source. I'm adding it to the article now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

page request
Can you make a typhoon page of typhoon Aere (Bebeng) since it was retired by PAGASA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.25.238 (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 1994-95 South Pacific cyclone season
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

JTWC/RSMC
I've noticed some of the tracks you have me generate are already as JTWC tracks and I'm overwriting them with Nadi's data. I'm wondering why they aren't all JTWC, or all RSMC. I think I've brought this up before, but I think we need to make some consensus on what to use. Where should I bring this topic up, or can you give me some info about why this is like this? atomic 77  32  05:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

IBTRACS
Hey, would you want me to update the SPAC tracks with the IBTRACS and Nadi BT data? I still don't really get why at all the JTWC is really used... Nadi's got data for all the cyclones of at least C1 strength. atomic 77  32  22:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You can do but take it on a case by case basis - for example dont update Zaka and Atu 1995-6 with RSMC data.Jason Rees (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to change any cyclones that shouldn't be. I'll be focusing on post-2000 storms, so don't worry about Zaka and Atu. I'll take a look at them and see what you mean for reasons for not updating them. I won't update any systems that are only TS by JTWC. You can always revert any changes if I do something wrong. Should I update the season maps as well? They have really tiny dots and look faded imo, if a computer generated graphic can look faded. :P atomic  77  32  02:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah it would be good to get some of the seasonal maps updated as they do sometimes look like crap and some of them have tracks that shouldn't be on there (eg 94-95).Jason Rees (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Not Blind
I'm not going blind...I looked at the JMA report and it didn't show it. Listed 08W as an LPA not a TD. They probably just updated it :P Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Be ready
Although this is still more than a week out, all the models are agreeing on Ma-On being one hell of a storm. GFS, CMC and ECMWF all show it becoming a Cat:5 and slamming into Japan (though they differ on where). ECMWF shows about a Cat:3/4 landfall in Kyushu while CMC shows a direct hit on Tokyo about the same strength. Definitely worth keeping an eye on but obviously now that I said something everything will fall apart :P Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Tracks
Hello,

I'm sorry for not responding to this earlier; I've removed the extratropical points in the season map. Also, I'm going to India tomorrow so I won't be on until the weekend at the earliest.

Have a good day! &mdash;  Ines (talk)  18:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

TD letter designation
Many years ago (like 20), that might have been true. It could be where I got the idea to label Atlantic TDs with an A. But now that they try to use a letter internationally unique, A is for Arabian Sea. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Pacific Tropical Cyclones
Would you mind providing me with the link to the website(s) in which you got your information? I just can't locate your source of information. If you do, that would be really helpful to me. Thank you! 68.6.149.53 (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They are all at the bottom of the article, and are also on my userpage. - The JMA is the main one.Jason Rees (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Source
- be sure you add a source when you change information like this. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, sorry about that. It was at the top of my watchlist when I came on, but yea, I figured it was the same source as Celia/Katrina. Nice find, btw. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Old Ops Plans
A few days ago on IRC, there was a discussion of why names were added to the 1985 PHS midseason, and whether Xavier, Yolanda, and Zeke were present from the beginning of the year on the 1986 name list. You provided a link, and said a names list was not in the 1986 Operational Plan (or some similar title), which is what you linked to. Could you please provide me a link to that archive of old NHC/EPHC operational plans, the source of the links your provided on IRC? Or tell me where I can find them? I would much appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 06:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Post-Tropical Cyclones
Well, if Post-Tropical Cyclones are actually extratropical, then why does the NHC state that they have a chance to redevelop? (For instance: Hurricane Eugene (2011), and Tropical Storm Emily (2011).) 68.6.149.53 (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest i dont know the reasoning behind it, but i do know that Gert is still considered to be a post tropical cyclone by the OPC and not extratropical.Jason Rees (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for jumping in, but post tropical mainly includes 2 types of systems: Remnant Lows and Extratropical Cyclones. They're just using this wording, iirc, to make it more understandable or something to that nature. So, not all systems classified as post tropical are extratropical. Darren 23 Edits 21:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Source
- be sure you add a source when you change information like this. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, sorry about that. It was at the top of my watchlist when I came on, but yea, I figured it was the same source as Celia/Katrina. Nice find, btw. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Old Ops Plans
A few days ago on IRC, there was a discussion of why names were added to the 1985 PHS midseason, and whether Xavier, Yolanda, and Zeke were present from the beginning of the year on the 1986 name list. You provided a link, and said a names list was not in the 1986 Operational Plan (or some similar title), which is what you linked to. Could you please provide me a link to that archive of old NHC/EPHC operational plans, the source of the links your provided on IRC? Or tell me where I can find them? I would much appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 06:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Post-Tropical Cyclones
Well, if Post-Tropical Cyclones are actually extratropical, then why does the NHC state that they have a chance to redevelop? (For instance: Hurricane Eugene (2011), and Tropical Storm Emily (2011).) 68.6.149.53 (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest i dont know the reasoning behind it, but i do know that Gert is still considered to be a post tropical cyclone by the OPC and not extratropical.Jason Rees (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for jumping in, but post tropical mainly includes 2 types of systems: Remnant Lows and Extratropical Cyclones. They're just using this wording, iirc, to make it more understandable or something to that nature. So, not all systems classified as post tropical are extratropical. Darren 23 Edits 21:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

re:Averages
Sure; I'll be working on it ASAP! --Anirudh Emani (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

WebCite Trouble
Thanks for the info. I am temporarily archiving stuff into a blog, which will (hopefully) be counter-archived at WebCite when its back. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Cyclone Fay
I was able to find the 2004 season summary from the JTWC, but nothing else. Was that all you had in mind, or did you have more data I can use? If so, I'd appreciate if you could pass it on. Thanks for the help! Inks.LWC (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Tara[****]You and Marius Bla Bla
Thank you for your notice. Meanwhile at least for accountsd blocked in German WP as well. --Matthiasb (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Rolf
But where should we write it up? Its own article with a "see also" on the Atlantic page?--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 18:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclones
have a look at W section...it's done..........any suggestions???--Vyom25 (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Tropical Disturbance 01?
Excuse me, if I may ask, is Invest 96S considered to be a tropical cyclone (in the South-West Indian Ocean)? If it is, then could you please create a section for that storm? Please let me know you opinion on this matter. Thank you! 72.197.253.243 (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not yet - and i doubt it will be initiated since none of the models that reunion use are deepening it.Jason Rees (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

List of unnamed tropical cyclones
The reason why I removed the four "unnamed" tropical storms from the 1957 Pacific typhoon section is because I later found that tropical storms in the Northwest Pacific did not operationally receive names until the 1958 season, when they were assigned names by the Fleet Weather Center (FWC) on Guam. Can you give me your opinion on whether or not the storms from 1957 should be included? thanks (Undescribed) 09:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: TCFA
I was also mistaken, thinking that was what was wrong with that template ;) Yea, I agree we shouldn't use winds from the TCFA. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI
There's an error in Marie 1990's row (24&#124;24 hours). Thanks for tidying it up though!  HurricaneFan 25  00:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Tropical Depression 02
Then when did the storm dissipate? (And where are you receiving this information from?) 72.197.253.243 (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Did the storm dissipate yet (and if it did, when)? 72.197.253.243 (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, did the storm dissipate yet? 72.197.253.243 (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it has been dropped from the Reunion warnings but we can not say that it has dissipated since that is original research.14:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Cyclone Yasi retirement section
The section I added under cyclone Yasi is valid because Yasi did not receive its name from the Austrailian naming list, but from the South pacific list. Since the storm did very little damage while in the South Pacific region; where it received its name, the name was not retired by the SP. The austrailian region couldn't retire the name because they were not responsible for naming the storm. Therefore, I have re-installed the section on "lack of retirement", and added references. If you have any evidence to contradict this, you can give me your opinion. Thanks Undescribed (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No its not valid because it is primarily original research for the following reasons.

1) The sentence hints that the SPAC does not retire names, when they do 2) Your source says nothing about Yasi being not retired, it only says that Anthony wasnt retired, which is so frickin obvious imo. 3) The WMO RA V Tropical Cyclone Committee (which Australia and Fiji are both a member of) are responsible for the retirement of names and not just the RSMCs. 4) The WMO RA V Committee does not meet until the back end of this current tropical cyclone season 5) While BoM were not responsible for the naming they still can request that the name be retired like Cyclone Ului of 2010 and im sure there are others. If you want more reasons just shout. :)Jason Rees (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


 HurricaneFan 25  —  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.  HurricaneFan 25  —  13:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Cyclone Rewa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mackay (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) 10:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank You
Hi Jason, you really helped me back in the 2010 with cyclone articles. If you remember you also gave some info about Karachi 1965 hurricane, without your help this article would not have been made http://pakistanweatherportal.com/2011/12/24/mysterious-cyclone-of-december-1965-karachi-in-the-eye-of-the-storm/

Thanks buddy! HunterZone (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice.Jason Rees (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just noticed this, and I have your answer. Here is the storm on December 15, 1965, which hit Pakistan. In 1965, Pakistan was on both sides of India, and the storm in question killed 10,000 people in East Pakistan, now known as Bangladesh. Here is the track map. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Alenga
Hey there, you mind doing me a favor? If you know, then can you please tell me when Alenga's remnants dissipated? Thank you! 72.197.253.243 (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont know when they dissipated, which is why i chose my words very carefully when i rewrote that section last night and was pissed off to see you add in that it had dissipated on the 12th without providing a source saying that.Jason Rees (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why put it that the storm "dissipated" on the 11th, when it was mentioned in the outlooks, until the 12th? 72.197.253.243 (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I havent put it as dissipated, since the infobox only show dates active. 2) Perths TWOs are issued daily at between about 4-6z. 3) It wasnt on the 12ths two but was on the 11ths. Jason Rees (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas, JasonRees, hope you've had a great day. :) &mdash;Bruvtakesover (talk!) 19:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Cyclone Nisha (1993)
This page is a self redirect. Were you trying to redirect it to somewhere else? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 03:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant to point the redirect to 1992-93 South Pacific cyclone Season and have redirected it off now. Thank you for bringing this redirect to my attention.Jason Rees (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Deep Depression BOB 05
Excuse me, but is this storm possibly BOB 06? Since ARB 04 did exist in the Bay of Bengal for almost half a weak (as a disturbance), a website I read classified ARB 04 with a second name: BOB 05. And then, they classified the new storm as BOB 06. Should we change the name or the storm, or leave it as it is? Thanks for your help! 72.197.253.243 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We follow the IMD not some random website. The IMD are calling this BOB 05/2011 Thus we leave it as BOB 05 till it earns the name Thane.Jason Rees (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I get it. Thanks! 72.197.253.243 (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone Fina
Isn't this storm still active?? According to the satellite image today at 600 UTC, the storm looks very healthy, and organized. And by the looks of it, Fina doesn't look like it will dissipate for at least another few days. But if Fina really has dissipated, or transitioned into an extratropical cyclone, please link your source (or where it might have used to me) to my talk page. I will very much appreciate it. Thanks! 72.197.253.243 (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It transitioned into a extratropical cyclone yesterday. &mdash;Bruvtakesover (talk!) 19:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

New Track?
Excuse me, but can I please add this to the WestPac season? File:JMA TD39 2011 track.png It was created by Keith Edkins Thanks! 72.197.253.243 (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can. &mdash;Bruvtakesover (talk!) 20:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You're invited!
WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Cup - come join the Hurricane Cup! --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited 2011 Pacific typhoon season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Landfall and Shear line (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) 10:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

JTWC files
Where are the JTWC files for Cyclone Joy (Australian/1990–91) located? I'd appreciate it if you could find them :)  HurricaneFan 25  —  19:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The JTWC advisories for this system are not present but what we do have is the BT Here. Page 222/214 of the 1991 ATCR should also help. Have you found any information from the BoM yet?.Jason Rees (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've found a bit; see User:Hurricanefan25/Sandbox 6.  HurricaneFan 25  —  20:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks JR!  HurricaneFan 25  —  20:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No probs - once this is up at FA and the season article is done, there is an GT in the offing oh and Sina.Jason Rees (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; I don't know much about the SHem basins compared to the NHem. :)  HurricaneFan 25  —  19:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: JMA TD
Good day sir Jason! long time no talk :) uhm I can't open the links that you post to my talk page. However, since your a good editor, I will consider your edits that JMA TD dissipated at around 0600 UTC of January 1st. Sorry for the mistake buddy :) Jpuligan 12 (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sir Jason?.Jason Rees (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well of course I have my manners. HAHA. anyway I have question. As we can see the JMA TD was recognized of course by JMA. so why you followed JTWC in the dissipation? its the JMA should be the one that we follow because they are the one that designated it as a tropical depression. just asking. Jpuligan 12 (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We havent - the JMA dropped the depression in their 12z bulletin.Jason Rees (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

ohh okay :) thanks sir. Cheers ! Jpuligan 12 (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC) hehe. yeah. thanks for the future references :)) Jpuligan 12 (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

December 2011 South Atlantic Tropical Cyclone?
For a few days in the beginning of December 2011, I noticed a strong cyclone that heavily resembled a subtropical cyclone (through the observation of satellite imagery). Throughout the storm's duration, the storm maintained its intensity, before moving inland over Brazil, and dissipating the next day. Could this possibly be an unofficial subtropical cyclone? If not, please let me know. With best regards, 72.197.253.243 (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont know - the only way we can add a subtropical cyclone in to the SATL is if a warning agency monitors it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oy - breakpoints for hurricane and tropical storm windwise
This was talked about at surprising length during the NOAA Hurricane Conference. I'll have to find it within my conference notes and get back to you. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's what I have:

Category 1: 74-95 mph,   64-82 kt,   119-153 km/h Category 2: 96-110 mph,  83-95 kt,   154-177 km/h Category 3: 111-129 mph, 96-112 kt,  178-208 km/h Category 4: 130-156 mph, 113-136 kt, 209-251 km/h Category 5: 157+ mph,    137+ kt,    252+ km/h

This is a change for categories 3-5, but only on paper. This is being done to eliminate conversion headaches, since it's always rounded to the nearest 5 units. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. The changes for cats 3-5 need to be ratified by the WMO.  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

SWIO Storm colors
Hi, I notice you have changed  to be the same as  instead of the same as  - is this logical when there is  available for cyclone-strength subtropical systems?--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 12:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Since you made the change Réunion have in fact declared a Subtropical Depression at just 25knots, so I have RV'd your change. I have made the documentation page match the currently available parameters as well (and done a little surreptitious harmonisation of the depression colors in different basins).--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 14:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

MF NC advisories
Will do.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 20:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Storm naming question
Noticed something odd (to me) in the 1st paragraph of Hurricane Bud (2006). It says this was the 3rd named storm of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season. For that to be the case, I assume Tropical Depression Two-E is being counted as the 2nd. Do you know, is that the way it's supposed to be? --LarryJeff (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont know i have asked someone who knows more about the EPAC than i to comment here.Jason Rees (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a mistake since TD's are not named, Bud is the 2nd named storms and 3rd tropical cyclone of the season. YE Pacific  Hurricane  14:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Permission
Hi! I'm very interested in Tropical cyclones and I was wondering if I could join the Tropical cyclone WikiProject. I don't know if I'm supposed to ask anyways, but your name was at the top of Current Members so I chose to ask you. Please write back! Happyyear13 (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Cyclone Zoe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tuvaluan (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) 10:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cyclone Susan
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  08:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Wikicup
Yep, that looks fine. Nice work! J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

WP Tropical Cyclones in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Tropical Cyclones for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
 * was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
 * is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
 * was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
 * was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer review limits changed
This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Here i will explain why i added the info that you think wasn't real in 2009 Pacific typhoon season-Typhoon Nida
I Was watching a video on YouTube- and at 5:26 in the video, you can see Nida spinning up.At 5:36 it appears Nida has dissipated.But on 5:40 in the video you can see a faint spiral associated with thunder storms east of the Philippines.(click this to watch:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb-yqP18iDA) It appears to be Nida but i was not sure so i went to "Digital Typhoon" and when i go back to the December 4 2009 visible image,of the Pacific, i notice a faint spiral just west of TD 28w-it was the remnants of Nida.As i checked the visible images from December-4-5-6 and than on the December 7, i watched the spiral of low level convection started to budge out some Thunder storms but wind shear was high at that time so it did not strengthen further.As i checked the December 9 image,i saw the spiral dissipating over the Philippines.

Here's the prove:

1.Look at this image from "Digital Typhoon"on December 4 and you can see a faint spiral-the remnants of Nida west of TD28w:http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/globe/color/2009/4096x4096/MTS109120400.globe.0.jpg

2.Check this image from December 6 and notice a spiral far west of the Philippines. http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/globe/color/2009/4096x4096/MTS109120600.globe.0.jpg

3.You can now clearly see the spiral west of the Philippines,and it has buged 2 Thunderclouds:http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/globe/color/2009/4096x4096/MTS109120800.globe.0.jpg

4.This image from December 8 shows the spiral strengthening slightly-you can see the low level circulation center is not fully exposed now: http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/globe/color/2009/4096x4096/MTS109120800.globe.0.jpg

5.The low dissipates over the Philippines on December 9 as shown here:http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/globe/color/2009/4096x4096/MTS109120900.globe.0.jpg Typhoonwikihelper (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Re:February 2012
Watch closely from December 2-3-4 and you can clearly see Nida weakening into a exposed, low level circulation area before moving southwestwards before strengthening slightly again!

'''I am not those ORDINARY people who just RANDOMLY edits articles! I watch closely by 100% check,image by image,track by track,and please don't misunderstand the prove i've giving you.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typhoonwikihelper (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

South Pacific Tropical Cyclones
As shown here, the RMSC Nadi has issued the last bulletin on Tropical Cyclone Cyril? Why are they doing that? And if the storm is not "dead" yet, are there any other bulletins out there, that we can use? 174.65.96.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

South Pac Issues
What is taking so long just to find the "missing" info, on the South Pac TCs? (Such as missing seasonal effects info, 04F data, (etc.)) 174.65.96.212 (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Disaster evaluations take time and we do not need Original Research such as no deaths or damage in the article.Jason Rees (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclones
Can I please add this track to the 2006 Central Pacific cyclone page (under the label of Unoffical track)? It is created from the track data provided on the page itself. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Cyclone Jasmine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Pacific (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) 10:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Jasmine
Is Jasmine dead yet, because it is no longer mentioned on this bulletin? 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep afaik it dissipated overnight.Jason Rees (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When did the storm dissipate? (And can I add this info the South Pac infobox?) 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * February 19, and the only place that it should be added to is Jasmines infobox before where it says extratropical after.....Jason Rees (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay... I did all of that. Now, by any chance, did you manage to webcite the final bulletin? 72.197.249.141 (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 Fiji floods
Since the floods were caused by the storms 06F - Cyril, and 8 deaths resulted, should I add them to the South Pac page? If no, then how are we going to handle this information? 72.197.249.141 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets be clear here, the floods were only caused by 06F dragging a trough of low pressure over Fiji. As for how we will handle it - i am still deciding but my inkling is to add a summuary of the flooding and refer them to the Fiji flooding page.Jason Rees (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, 06F caused 8 deaths? If that's true, may I add it to the South Pac page? 72.197.249.141 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 06F and the Trough caused the deaths and yeah add them in and add this to the reference column: .Jason Rees (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

TD01w
Dear Jason Ress, if you don't believe the information i added in TD01w, at least you can keep the original image showing TD01w exposed. If i done anything wrong please warn me as i am new to Wikipedia. 218.103.145.237 (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not allowed to use satellite imagery to prove anything on Wikipedia also you used an unreliable source.Jason Rees (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Plus, you are not providing anything as of thus far, that can actually sway offical JTWC or JMA data. Besides, we have posted official data, straight from those agencies. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Then were is your source for saying:" Later on the same day, the remnants of 01W were completely absorbed by the Intertropical Convergence Zone."??? besides, satellite imagery clearly show the convection was absorbed, but not the circulation center! if you don't reply i'll keep reverting that edit! because it is a clear false information. Thank You.218.103.152.230 (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the advisories issued by the JTWC and the JMA neither is right or sourced back to a reliable source - so we cant see either.Jason Rees (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for replying, i don't know what to do now.
 * What we will do is rewrite the section.Jason Rees (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Typhoonwikihelper has switched to this IP Address: 219.77.32.65 Please read his talk page. He has to be stopped; report him to WP:ANI if you can't block him. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Proof? Jason Rees (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Jason is right. You can't cite images as proof of anything on Wikipedia. If you had a picture and used that to cite "the sky is blue", that info would be deleted. Wikipedia is all about proper verification. Using images is iffy, since different people can interpret them differently. We need nice, solid sources. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, my dear Hurricanehink-for giving this helpful advice/lesson--♫203.218.175.102 (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please answer my question-User:72.197.249.141 told me to ask here

 * Enough of the crap please. Typhoonwikihelper - you were blocked because other editors found you a nuisance after you constantly spammed peoples pages, tried to bribe them with banisters and added random crap to pages. You then posted up a fake suicide note which shook a few people up especially when we found out that it was a fake. You were then offered a chance to come back under some very strict conditions which you managed to break within a couple of days and you were subsquently reblocked. Since then you have been even more of a nuisance after you have been editing via an IP addresses.Jason Rees (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually seriously nearly hanged-but i thought i was dumb...there's got to be more chances....WIKIPEDIA MUST BE SAVED! so i give up suicide...the truth is that everybody is spamming other user's page...it just that some admit and some do not...some see it as just a talk like me, or a warning to others not to do bad things...some mistake "warnings" are spam..218.103.145.154 (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please be noted that if i get too mad i will seriously create a Vandalism-only account 218.103.145.154 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, to tell you the truth, the chance of that happening above is a low chance-0.4% to be exact.Sorry if it frighten you, but i just get into some temper sometimes --203.218.175.102 (talk) 10:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

STD 03
Well, OK. I have retrieved some Réunion daily summaries and pieced together some sort of track.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 14:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's good news. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Track converter
OK, http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/nrl.htm now converts Best Track files as well as NRL.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 21:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup round 2
Hi- this is a message to let you know that you are one of six people tied for 64th place in the WikiCup, and so have a chance to make it to round 2- see Wikipedia talk:WikiCup for details. Please reply there. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was, again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was, thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were, , and. February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from. At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 00:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Tracks
Thanks. I've extended the Track Converter page to process storm data from the BoM file. They don't believe in regular fixes, do they?--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 22:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ma-on
Best track cite renewed.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 08:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! , of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's, thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's, who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to, whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to, who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

1977 WMO source?
I checked to see if this was referenced in the tropical cyclone naming article, but was not able to find it. You know of the source of this information? I won't add it without a source. I'm having a hard enough time sourcing what's already in the NHC article. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks...now I see it. Gary's message will do for now, but we do need to find a better reference.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The extra name used in 1985 was done off the cuff, then suddenly X, Y, Z names appeared on the eastern Pacific list, which sufficed until 1992. There was no plan in place for names starting beyond W then.  I think the Greek Alphabet idea was developed sometime between 1992 and 2000, but when, I'm not exactly sure. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you have half the answer. You could check Google news.  Anything involved in Atlantic naming would be covered in the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale papers.  Thegreatdr (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Cyclone Lua
Did this storm really kill anybody? I think it is about time we know. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

South Pacific cyclone season
How long is it going to take, before we can finally fill in the blanks in the Seasonal effects infobox (near the end of the article)? 72.197.249.141 (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's  coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both and, the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article,  earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by  to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank and, for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:OR
Thanks for telling me that, as i am new to wiki(i'm a little spinning in my head, as i am not really sure what is right, or a little wrong). If you have any more suggestions, please contact me!--Earth100 (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: General Links
Good morning Mr. Rees! I apologized for using general links that is not needed. I've always forget that one. However, with adding those things, my work for meteorological history of Tropical Depression 03W will be reverted? why? I put right information about that depression. Hope for your kind understanding. thanks bro. happy hour ! (: Jpuligan 12 (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know my works are right. Can you please just use my work as the meteorological history of TD 03W? just revert what are the wrong grammars, remove unnecessary references, etc. thanks again bro. have a good day ! (: Jpuligan 12 (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh brotha! sorry for the mistake and thanks for notifying me and the source. shalom! Jpuligan 12 (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is, whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,, is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by, our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,, claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

User:112.198.77.183's Vandalism!
I was checking the 2012 Pacific typhoon season article, when i noticed the the Season summary section text were changed into "9999" please check here to see what User:112.198.77.183 did. His edit changed the "Last storm dissipated" to December 31, 2012-but i changed it back to currently active."Total fatalities" No.8 was changed to "9999"!!! This is crazy! i hate Vandalism! why did he did that?! (I changed his edit back to the original). How can we report him?


 * Click Here to view the history of the 2012 Pacific typhoon season article
 * Click Here to view User:112.198.77.183's talk page
 * Click here to see the changes from User:112.198.77.183's Vandalism, to normal by me.

Please reply Sincerely,--Earth100 (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Theres no point reporting him, as he only made 1 edit just to try and be funny. We all hate it but its something we have to live with from time to time.Jason Rees (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh i see...perhaps is just that i'm new, and inexperienced. Well one thing is certain: i won't tolerate any Vandalism and i will always welcome any advisesEarth100 (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:112.198.77.28 Vandalism
This Vandalism was quite huge and extreme Vandalism, and almost the entire page was vandalized. He has also done more than one vandalism. What can we do about it?? I've never seen such extreme vandalism! It was by chance that i kept reloading the 2012 pacific typhoon season page when i saw the vandal changed Marwar to a category 5. Please reply--Earth100 (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is an "Administrator"? =Earth100 (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

okay, okay, i get it- as i seen from here. Still, a big thank you for telling me that there are such super Wikipedians! Earth100 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Brief climatology of tropical cyclones in Louisiana
This link, pages 3-7. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Jamaica rainfall - too much precision
The source only gives whole mm. No one reports rainfall beyond the nearest 0.1 mm. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 mm is approximately 1/25 of an inch. From that perspective, it would make the most sense to go to the nearest 0.1 mm, or round the inches to the nearest 0.1 inch.  Which do you prefer?   Thegreatdr (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

1956 publication
I know this much. It detailed tropical storm and hurricane rainfall from 1899-1955, and was published in 1956 by the Washington Office of the Weather Bureau, the forerunner of NMC and HPC. I've done a few searches over the past 24 hours with no luck. =( Thegreatdr (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say the first one the two links you provided. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They apparently have two copies of this downstairs at work. I'm checking into checking out a copy, to see if it would be easy to digitize.  It's quite long.  If it is bound, I won't likely digitize it.  Thegreatdr (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It has to be scanned eventually anyway. There's no money in the budget for NCDC to continue their CDMP project, so if I don't, no one will for years.  Thegreatdr (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If we have the right version of Adobe at work, it could be online in four hours. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As it turns out, the document was only bound by two staples. It was checked out via e-mail from the downstairs reading room, and delivered to my work mailbox yesterday.  I removed the staples and fed it through the photocopier at work, but the scanned document is in eight pieces/different .pdfs.  Now that I have the instructions and am pretty sure that we have the correct version of Adobe, it should be easy to merge them once I get to work.  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:Accessibility
While I agree with you, there is that other table in the next section that also has those abbreviations on it also. The problem with the one table that covers up the bars and just makes an overlapping mess.United States Man (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: 3RR
Can you point me to where the policy says that dates cannot have the non-breaking spaces? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no need to practically get into an edit war without actually citing the policy in question. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 07:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But all I'm asking is for you to cite the provision for removing the non-breaking spaces in dates. That's the reason I reverted. I didn't see a need for you to do that. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's your preference. MOS:NBSP says nothing about not having that for dates, and WP:MOSNUM, which you are citing, says nothing about that as well. In fact, MOS:NBSP says "A non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) is recommended to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that could be awkward at the beginning of a new line." Well, I am doing that to prevent something like "July 13", which happens when the dates aren't together. There is no reason for you to be removing them unilaterally and citing policy that doesn't exist. My preference is to have non-breaking spaces in the dates. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hink here; I finally see the point in non-breaking spaces. YE Pacific  Hurricane  14:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

JR, can you point me to where the script editors say that, and per what policy? Dates very much are susceptible to breaking. Example:

exampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexampleexample November 1

On my screen, November and 1 are on separate lines. I'm just trying to avoid that. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohconfucius#.26nbsps.3B
 * OK, now we're getting somewhere. I take it your script was "fixing" the date format so that it says June 14, and then the dates and accessdates say June 14, 2012 as well. My preference is to have dates and accessdates as 2012-06-12. So, rather than talking to me about how my formatting is in my references, you just put up a big stink about non-breaking spaces in general? Am I correct that the basis for this little spat basically just rests in the references? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone names
Hi. I just added the 2018 season of the tropical cyclone names at North Atlantic section on Lists of tropical cyclone names page yesterday. And why did you have reverted it? --8TimesChampionLoeb (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Brisbane's high seas forecasts
Done--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 17:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter
Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's, who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's, whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's, with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States
Hi Jason,

You've been doing great work at List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States! Unfortunately, one of your recent edits broke links to several of the images on the article. While it is important to make sure date formats are consistent within an article, this does not include dates used in image titles, which must correspond with what the images are called or else the links will be broken. I have fixed the links to the images. If you'd like to see this article go up on the main page, your comments would be welcome here.

Neelix (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Jason,


 * It might be a good idea to contact whoever owns the script so that they are aware of the problem, or else it will likely wreak havoc on other articles.


 * Neelix (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:FYI
Ok, thanks for letting me know. BTW, is American Samoa east or west of 180W? YE Pacific  Hurricane  19:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)