User talk:Kspanks04

Greetings
I welcome another meteorologist to wikipedia. In regards to your comments on the weather fronts articles, if you're going to make improvements to include more advanced topics, make sure they are clearly understandable to the lay reader and are well-referenced using inline references. Otherwise, their class will lower and people will complain within their talk pages. This is part of the reason why I stopped at GA class with many of the weather topics. While I can communicate with other meteorologists just fine, I sometimes have issues making topics understandable to people with no meteorology background. Feel free to improve any articles to GA or FA status if you so desire. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I edited that section because the information was inaccurate, looking back at the article I realize that it is probably a bit too technical ;)(good call). As you know, with meteorological topics, it can be very difficult to make topics understandable to the lay person. Do you think I should move that information to the Frontogenesis page? Kspanks04 (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

October 2015
Hello, I'm MusikAnimal. I noticed that you recently removed some content from National Ambient Air Quality Standards with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  16:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Cold Fronts and wedges
I noticed your edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weather_front&oldid=591027407 and the cold front page. I get the impression your understanding is much deeper than mine, but I think that the wording is wrong/confusing - you allude to warm air undercutting cold air (which doesn't seem to be the popular explanation - you may have swapped warm and cold). Also, the bald assertion of it being "technically incorrect" sounds rather like similar warring factions trying to enforce their understanding of lift of an aerofoil on everybody else rather than recognising that simple verbal models (benoulli/circulation/etc.) can be useful and partially true but are really complete. The reference (11) doesn't support your assertion (that's not to suggest you are wrong btw). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laos (talk • contribs) 15:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)