User talk:Pierre cb

February 2006
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karm a  fist  17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

test for me
$$P_r = \left [ P_t{{ G^2 \lambda^2 \sigma^0}\over{{(4\pi)}^3 R^4}} \right ] \propto \frac {\sigma^0} {R^4}\qquad \qquad \begin{cases} P_r = received\ power \\ P_t = transmitted\ power \\ G_t = gain\ of\ the\ transmitting\ antenna \\ \lambda = radar\ wavelenght \\ \sigma = radar\ cross\ section\ of\ the\ target \\ R = distance\ from\ the\ transmitter\ to\ the\ target \end{cases}$$

Weather Radar
Hi,

In the radar article you have changed the caption to "Storm front on Doppler radar screen (NOAA)". This is not a Doppler radar display (velocity) but a reflectivity (intensity of precipitation). It is an american media error to subtitute Doppler to Weather radar. Weather radar can be Doppler but a Doppler radar is not necessarily a weather radar. Sorry but I have to correct. Pierre cb 13:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on your point that a weather radar can be Doppler, but not necessarily. I was not trying to imply that this was a Doppler image, otherwise I would have said "Storm front on radar's Doppler screen". Rather, I was pointing out the fact that the radar screen belongs to the Doppler radar. Actually, I just did a direct translation of the image file name from German. To prove to you that the radar is indeed a Doppler radar, I'll show you the source of the image, whose caption states it is the "Norman Doppler radar reflectivity display showing squall line." In my haste, I removed the word reflectivity, thinking that the average reader would not understand, but that has obviously caused confusion. Can we change the caption to read:

"NOAA's Norman Doppler radar reflectivity (precipitation intensity) display showing squall line"
 * or something to that effect? —Gintar77 23:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Doppler radar vs. Doppler weather radar
While I suppose it is technically more correct to say Doppler weather radar, I have very rarely seen this phrasing use. You say that "Doppler radar" is a misnomer. It's not a misnomer, and especially not an "American" misnomer; it is accurate, it's just a shortening. It is the term used by the National Weather Service, The Weather Channel, The Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Environment Canada, and almost every other agency that I could find. In most contexts, it is clear that when an article uses the phrase Doppler radar they in fact mean weather radar with Doppler capabilities. I am going to be going through and clarifying wording in a bunch of the articles you changed, I hope you don't mind, but clearly, the phrase "Doppler radar" wins out over "Doppler weather radar" or, even worse, "Doppler effect weather radar". Let me know if you have any problems with this. - Running On  Brains  21:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that. Regardless, I will be leaving some links as plain weather radar, but the ones that are specifically doppler-based I will be changing to Doppler radar (written Doppler radar ).  I think it's important to have a link to both topics, as well as using the familiar wording term which seems to be universally used in non-technical settings. - Running  On  Brains  21:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose. As I said, I wasn't aware of the difference, and so it seems you are mostly right.  I'll try to avoid using the term "Doppler" at all if not necessary, and will only change the phrase to include both links where the doppler part is important, such as with discussion on Tornado vortex signatures. - Running  On  Brains  22:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

BWER
I figured out the mistake concerning Doppler in Canada soon after I made the change...which was 1985 not 1993. And you're right about BWERs...any radar should be able to capture them. My problem (and that of the GA reviewer) was that references were not provided for that line, and I could not find one on the internet. If your masters is such a reference, or you know of an appropriate text reference, readd the date wording, providing your master's or the appropriate paper/book as the reference. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

North American ice storm of 1998 GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed North American ice storm of 1998 and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues concerning sourcing that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left this message on your talk page since you have significantly edited the article (based on using this article history tool). Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix with the assistance of multiple editors. I have also left messages on the talk pages for other editors and related WikiProject to spread the workload around some. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tornado
I'd like to leave it for a few days and see how things develop. If you want to start a discussion about protection, you can try Talk:Tornado or WP:RFPP. Cheers, --Ryan Delaney talk 15:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Radar composantes.png/svg
Hi Pierre. I've made the change to as requested. Enjoy! Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Convective storm detection
Thanks for your work on convective storm detection, particularly radar and as it pertains to hail/updrafts. I put up a rough start of the article online and haven't gotten around to expanding and refining it (especially the exclusionary focus on tornadoes). Do you plan to add anything about lightning detection (and prediction)? Evolauxia (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about weather radar
Thanks for all the work you've put into the excellent Weather Radar article. I consulted it just now, wondering how sites like Intellicast distinguish between rain, snow, and wintry mix in their radar images. My guess having read the WP article is that it's based on the calculation of the downward velocity of the precipitation. Is that right? If so, would it be possible to include a brief mention of that in the article? Thanks again. Jbening (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Severe weather article reformatting
One of the editors called me back for ideas regarding this article. Since I've been away from the article for a while, I got fresh perspective. I think we went about things in a way that was too complicated last year. This morning, I simplified the format. I'd be interested in your opinion as to whether this reorganization improved the article or not. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's excellent feedback. The excessive rain/flooding section was bound to be lacking since the article on the topic is also lacking.  I'll see what I can do and place the comment on the Severe Weather talk page.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Code for tornado proofing buildings
I did insert something about that which I found into the radius of maximum wind article. I would think there are rules about how to tornado proof structure, as most National Weather Service Offices in tornado or hurricane-prone areas have an interior safe room which was built independently (and prior to) the rest of the building which surrounds it. The way buildings are built in the Bahamas are the best method of hurricane-proofing a structure (it was a method used in Florida into the 1920's and then lost as contractors poured into the state to build cheap housing during housing booms which has occurred since then). As for whether it is mandatory code (or law) in certain states, I have no idea. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hazel image
Paul created both a winter storm book and a Northeast hurricane climatology back in the 1980s/1990s while he was at HPC. This was done manually, prior to our introduction to nMap, so yes, the images look clean and stylized for a black and white printing format. I have an old copy at work. He never published it. I'm wondering how CHC got access to it in the first place. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Pulse-Doppler radar
Hello Pierre cb. It would be nice if you would like to collaborate. I was unaware that we are supposed to communicate about articles using each others personal page until you pointed this out to me. Thank you. It was a pleasant surprise to see someone else provide the correct equation for I. The criticism you left for me identifies no specific defect in the article that you would like me to correct - you mention the article is confusing, you mention something about in-line references that I did not understand, you site nothing specific that needs to be changed, and you left comments about the article on my personal page instead of in the discussion for the article. If you can describe the kinds of things you do not like, then I will correct those things every few months when I become available. If that is unacceptable, then I can put the article back the way I found it. The original article regarding Pulse-Doppler was incorrect, and I revised it so that readers could understand a little bit about how these kinds of radar/sonar systems work. Pulse-Doppler is about 10 times more complex than conventional systems, and the best I can do is to just skim the surface of the topic because convolution radar/sonar systems are very difficult to understand and nearly impossible to explain without providing the actual code and specifications (not helpful in an encyclopedia). It would be nice if you could help. You seem to have a great deal of experience writing for wikipedia. I hope this finds you well, and I am pleased to make your acquaintance. Best regards, GregNanoatzin (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

David Atlas (Meteorology pioneer)
Hello Pierre,

The source of the Jewish Virtual Library is the Encyclopaedia Judaica, which contains biographies of renowned Jews (among them is David Atlas). Engines On (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

fr article:1999 tornado
I don't know if this is really correct under Wikipedia's policies, but because I only have a basic level of French-speaking abilities, and I don't like having to switch back and forth with NWS information, I thought I would say this here instead, seeing as how you at least appear to be able to speak English to some degree. On the French Wikipedia, I made this edit for a valid reason. Oklahoma City area is not too vague because so many areas had significant impacts. Also, the page that I referenced in my edit summary is not titled Moore. The page (source) for the supercell itself and all tornadoes it produced is named ELGIN - CHICKASHA - BRIDGE CREEK - MOORE - CHOCTAW STORM, although that does not properly relate because that is only the path of the storm itself, not the track of the tornado I am referring to. That tornado impacted far more than just Moore; that is just a result of media bias that chose to ignore much of the incredible damage that occurred in other areas. Also, I would definitely call the words of national agencies more important than claims the media makes. You are incorrect in claiming that the media in the United States has always referred to it as Moore tornado, even if that has often occurred; there are definitely some media sources that have referred to it otherwise, although media references still should not be important here. The forecast office itself has referred to it as Oklahoma City area tornado and Bridge Creek - Moore - Oklahoma City tornado. If you want me to give you more sources to verify this, then please ask. Also, Bridge Creek to southwestern Oklahoma City to Moore is only the area where F5 damage was rated as such. If I properly recall, the tornado caused approximately one billion dollars in 1999 USD, with 450 million dollars of this damage being caused in Oklahoma County, which does not contain any part of Moore. I repeat, Oklahoma City area is not vague at all, but rather, is more inclusive and better. As stated by the National Weather Service here, "Totals from this tornado include 36 direct fatalities (12 in Bridge Creek, 1 in Newcastle, 9 in S/SE Oklahoma City, 5 in Moore, 6 in Del City, and 3 in Midwest City), 5 indirect fatalities during or shortly after the tornado, 583 direct injuries, numerous indirect injuries (too many to count), 1800 homes destroyed, and 2500 homes damaged." The majority of the fatalities from this tornado occurred in Bridge Creek, followed by Oklahoma City, and of 36 fatalities, only five of them were in Moore, another point of significance. Also stated by that source is the tornado track - "2 SSW Amber - far N Newcastle - SW Oklahoma City - N Moore-S Del City-W Midwest City". Over five cities were judged to have received F4+ damage, as well as Amber (F4) and Bridge Creek (F5), which wouldn't really be cities. Based on all of this, I would judge that the section's name should be more inclusive. Finally, on the name of the tornado which many say is Bridge Creek-Moore, that claim was only made on the basis that the SPC's F5 tornado list said so. That was only referring to the area where F5 damage was observed, not the full track. In having such a narrow-ranged title, Wikipedia may as well say that the rest of the track doesn't matter, even the parts where the tornado was judged to still be violent. The only other ways I could reword the title while keeping it inclusive of the affected areas would be 1999 Amber-Midwest City tornado, 1999 Amber-Some City Inbetween-Midwest City tornado, or Oklahoma City metro tornado. The reason I am saying so much about this is I am tired of media bias towards Moore every time a tornado occurs within its city limits. I don't want to see Wikipedia promoting this view, especially when it is within my capability to remove such bias. It seems to me that with some tornado articles, the name Wikipedia gives is not inclusive enough...and it often appears that the only reason is that the editor wants the title to be short so that it is easier to type. This issue doesn't just appear on that page of the French Wikipedia, but also occurs on the English Wikipedia and likely other Wikipedias on a multitude of pages. I just think that articles and sections of articles should have more inclusive titles. I'm sorry that I made this so long, I just wanted to give many of my reasons at once so that I can make my purpose clearer and avoid missing many points. Also, I'm sorry if I am breaking some sort of policy by posting about an issue that has occurred in one language of Wikipedia in a different language of Wikipedia. Dustin  talk  00:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Dewcell
Right now the only image is within File:Stevenson screen interior.JPG but it's not very clear. I'm at work so later when it gets quiet I'll get one of the spares and get some pictures. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that someone cropped the above to come up with File:Dewcell.png but I'm sure I can get something better than that. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm just uploading six images of the dewcell and associated bits. They will be one more of the unit we use to wash it in. That's at a different site and I'll get it on Tuesday. I'm doing this at work so uploading can be slow and may take a while. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Added a picture and a link to commons. Also moved the page to Dewcel which looks like the correct spelling. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * When I looked at the article yesterday I saw that it was named dewcell but used dewcel throughout. I pulled out our paper copy of MANOBS, which is also online here, and they use dewcel. I've moved it back because that was where it started and added references for all three spellings, dew cell seems like an alternate. Environment Canada seem to use dewcel in both English and French, here, and don't get any hits for "dewcell". By the way the PWGSC link shows this page as their source, the WMO. I also fixed the Commons pages. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem. I should have checked a bit more yesterday. EC has a habit of making slight changes to things the WMO comes out with. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Uploaded pictures of the washer. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Anticyclone vs. high-pressure system
I oppose the merge since one is defined by wind and the other by pressure. However, any merger could be complicated if that is what is favored, as high-pressure system is a GA while anticyclone is C class. If merger is favored, someone is going to have to be careful with this. I would merge referenced content from anticyclone into high-pressure area to maintain the GA status and then rename high-pressure area as anticyclone. The C class article shouldn't be the kernel for the merged article, should that be decided, because it is the lesser article. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since Thegreatdr has already commented here, I thought I might point out that Cyclone and Low-pressure area are different articles, so shouldn't we be consistent? Dustin  ( talk ) 20:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've commented in both places. :)  It would be better to use the talk page of those pages for discussion.  I only commented here since he proposed it, and I've been the main contributor to both articles.  Thegreatdr (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: 1776 Pointe-à-Pitre hurricane
Heh, sorry about that edit summary. Sometimes I get bored just saying "redirecting". In essence, the article was rather short with no hope for expansion, so I merged it into the season article. If there was more info, the article could have stayed, but the storm was over two centuries ago. I had brought up a merge discussion, and no one voiced to the contrary. Also, though it is unofficial, I talked to people on the IRC channel, and there was a general agreement that it could be merged. We could restart a discussion on it if you want. I had originally created the article, and it was kinda just sitting there, so I boldly merged it. Does that make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A gotcha. Yea, there just wasn't enough info there for an article. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Dopplar radar and bird migration
I don't know if blanking the page solves the problem. If you believe that the page should be deleted, ask for the deletion.Xx236 (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * and This page is not useful anymore since it is a misspelled version of an article that I merge into Weather radar as a section. I have blanked unused page before on Commons and it was automatically removed by a BOT. If you think that asking for a deletion is better, I will. Pierre cb (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Pierre, it's a plausible misspelling just as we have Dopplar redirecting to Doppler. Redirects are cheap and it's not really worth the time taking it to RFD. Cordialement, Sam Sailor Talk! 13:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC) P.S. I fixed the double redirect.
 * and  OK. Pierre cb (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

MESO-SAILS
Hey Pierre. Thanks for pointing out my lack of citation in my inclusion of mentioning MESO-SAILS in Terminal Doppler Weather Radar. Fixed it now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlueManGoop (talk • contribs) 14:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

TDWR map
I notice that at File:Map TDWR.svg, you list Norman. That radar is located at Will Rogers World Airport in Oklahoma City (not Norman), so the file needs to be changed. Thank you. Master of Time  ( talk ) 17:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There is two references for that images and one is naming Norman while the other is naming Norman. Could you provide an official reference to confirm your information before I make a change? ... Its OK, I found one (https://www.roc.noaa.gov/wsr88d/maps.aspx) Pierre cb (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

ARMOR Radar edit
Hey Pierre! I publicly thanked you for your additions to ARMOR Doppler Weather Radar, but that is anecdotal. I live in Huntsville and regularly use ARMOR for mesoscale obs in the Tennessee Valley - Thank you for adding that template to the article! I feel dumb that I didn't think about it. Bryan C. W. (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Brian Daly
Hi Pierre! Thanks for your very thorough article. As for the equations, they would be of general interest to a non meteorologist. However, some of the formulas may need to be highlighted with units to be used, especially distance (SM, NM, km, or m?) and angles (degrees or radians?). This has been a stumbling block for many a meteorology (or other) student.

Thank you sir!

Brian Daly Mobile AL Praying for Houston my home city.


 * Thanks for the comment. When you talk about the units, are you referring to the ARMOR article or another? Pierre cb (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Gustave Hermite
Interesting article. I see that your ref to l'Aerophile points to Google books; actually it would be possible to give a link to tha actual article since all issues of the Aerohile are available online. See TheLongTone (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the link! I am changing right away. Pierre cb (talk) 22:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Bonjour
Bonjour Pierre. J'ai recu votre message de mon draft the Roger Lhermitte. Oui, en effet, je suis un des fils. Je prepare la page quand j'ai un peu de temps par ci par la. Je pense etre pret dans un mois (j'ai des tas de references a lire). Quand je seras finit, j'aimerais le traduir en francais. Je pourrai vous contacter quand c'est pret? Pardonne mon ecriture. Ca fait un moment que je n'ai pas eu l'opportunite a ecrire en francais. Vous etes le bienvenu a contribuer si vous etes interresse aussi bien sur.

J'etait a Montreal pendant 6 ans a McGill (un hasard complet). Quelle belle ville.

Jrmlhermitte (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Bonjour. Votre brouillon m'a incité à travailler sur un article de mon côté en m'inspirant du votre. Quand vous serez prêt, j'y fusionnerai le vôtre et publierai en français. Pierre cb (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Si vous pourrez faire ceci ca sera super, merci! :-) Je vous contactera quand je serais finit. N'hesitez pas a commencer si vous voulez.

Jrmlhermitte (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Bonjour, si vous avez des détails sur son éducation avant son doctorat, ça serait important à ajouter. En effet, il y a un gros trou d'information entre sa naissance et son travail sur les radars (1920 et 1954). Ça permettrait de savoir pourquoi, entre autres, il fut forcé par les Allemands d'aller à Berlin pour un travail spécialisé et ce qu'il a fait après. Pierre cb (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * J'ai complété l'article en français dans mon espace brouillon en partie avec le vôtre et aussi avec d'autres références : fr:Utilisateur:Pierre cb/Brouillon. Je vais créée l'article d'ici deux semaines si vous n'avez pas d'objection et on coordonnera avec le vôtre en anglais quand vous éditerez le vôtre. Pierre cb (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merci Pierre. Desole, j'etais un peu occupe ces jours ci. Le brouillon est tres bien ecrit :-). Aussi, je n'ai jamais recu votre premier message par email, etrange. Je peux repondre maintenant. Je n'ai pas encore trouve de l'information sur mon pere pendant cette epoque (1920-1954). J'essaye encore de trouver. Si je trouve plus d'informations j'en rajoutera. Tout information ajoute a wikipedia doit venir d'une reference correcte? Si je trouve une personne qui peut me donner des renseignement, est-ce que c'est possible de documenter ce qu'ils disent sur wikipedia? Merci!
 * Vous pouvez citer des informations sans références mais il est possible que quelqu'un demandera une référence et toute référence doit être accessible par internet ou au moins dans un ouvrage cité dans un issn, oclc, etc... En tout cas, si quelqu'un peut trouver ces informations ce sera vous! Pierre cb (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Bonjour, j'ai créé l'article fr:Roger Lhermitte. Laissez-moi savoir quand vous ferez de même en anglais pour qu'on puisse les relier par Interwiki. Pierre cb (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merci Pierre! Desole, la vie est un peu occupee pour moi. Je pense finir dans moins d'un mois. Je te contactera quand je seras pret. Merci encore, c'est une belle page :) Jrmlhermitte (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Je voulais juste vous signaler que j'ai soumis la page pour revue. Je pense rajouter plus d'information dans le futur mais je pense qu'elle est prete. Merci pour tous l'aide! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrmlhermitte (talk • contribs) 03:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Très bien. Pierre cb (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Image of Doppler weather radar of Visakhapatnam in RMC, Chennai article
Dear Pierre cb. Good day. I just noticed you added an image of Doppler weather radar of Visakhapatnam in Regional Meteorological Centre, Chennai article. I wonder why the radar in Visakhapatnam be included in an article about Chennai. I guess it can be removed. However, I'd like to know your rationale before deciding further. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the image because this article is not about Chennai but the Regional Meteorological Center which is based in this city but has responsability much further afield as specifically mentioned in the article: "The non-aviation forecasting work, including cyclone warnings, is supervised and co-ordinated by the ACWC at Regional Meteorological Centre, Chennai, by means of the Cyclone Detection Radar. The Cyclone Detection Radars are located at Chennai, Machilipatnam, Vishakhapatnam, Karaikal and Kochi which track tropical cyclones over the Bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea."


 * The photo is facing that same paragraph. I could not put an image of the radar in Chennai because I found nonne in Commons at the time, but I can add the one I found today.
 * Pierre cb (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Aviation Weather Centre
The heading doesn't add anything. And you might try brushing-up your spelling. (Responsalities?) Valetude (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Or more to the point, the lede doesn't summarise the article (as it should). But in any case, an article as short as this does not warrant a lede. Valetude (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Day 8 Convective Outlook page you declined.
Your comment on that it is already covered by the SPC Wiki page is incorrect. They never mention on that page how many times one has been issued and their respective days.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExtremeWX (talk • contribs) 13:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)


 * All Outlooks are mentioned in the SPC article, the number of times a particular outlook is issued is not important and certainly does not need an article on its own. At most, what you write could just be a mention in a section of the SPC article. However, your draft has no focus and no context. Please read the Wikipedia Help to know how to contribute. Pierre cb (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

BOM Radars Update
Hi @Pierre cb I have updated the BOM Radars image using an Openstreetmap background map and have uploaded it to the List of Bureau of Meteorology weather radars infobox. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 04:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. It looks good. However, as your previous attempt, it lacks the mention of the background map used. If you remember, you are exposed to a deletion demand again as it was the question the last time. You could mention something like : "Work done on a CC-BY-SA 2.0 OpenStreetMap (https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright) and data from http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/radar/index.shtml?ref=hdr" Pierre cb (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for catching the Hurricane Dorian reference on the Fiona page. I am so embarrassed! While there were multiple reports during the storm of waves of that height for Fiona itself (including a loose but not verified report by meteorologist Ashley Brauweiler of waves twice the predicted height), finding a reliable reference which states it explicitly has proven difficult. I saw the buoy measurements originally from a non-news channel angle, and neglected to check the year. Thank you again. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Carefull
While I get and agree with why you called the IP's reasoning Bullshit, I do feel the need to remind you of WP:Civil.Jason Rees (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * OK. However this IP seems to be a troll that want to provoque an argument "ad infinitum". Pierre cb (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont disagree with you but I am not sure what can be done about him.Jason Rees (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

1939 Pacific Hurricane Season
Hi Pierre, I’d like to ask where you were able to get the tracks for the 1939 Pacific hurricane season, as the source link is now dead. If you happen to be the person who made the tracks, would you be able to give me some information on the analysis? I’m a tropical cyclone animator and am doing an analysis on the season, and would like to know more information. Best regards, Corgi :) Corgimations (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am sorry but I never worked on that item, so I cannot help you. The only thing I did on the image is to change the categories in Commons. Pierre cb (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you anyways. I would reach out to the person who originally uploaded it, however they are no longer on Wikipedia. Thank you for responding anyways :) Corgimations (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)