User talk:Thegreatdr/2007archive

Comisión Nacional del Agua
Hello, Doc. One thing I noticed both on Tropical cyclone rainfall climatology, and in the HPC site as well, is that it states that the data comes from CNA, a part of the Mexican National Weather Service. Actually, it is the other way around. The Mexican Servicio Meteorológico Nacional is a part of the Comisión Nacional del Agua. I'm pretty sure about that, but to be sure, I checked their website, and at http://smn.cna.gob.mx/infosmn/chistoria.html, it states:
 * En 1989, al crearse la CNA, el Servicio Meteorológico se integró como una Subgerencia dependiente de la Subdirección General de Administración del Agua y, en 1990, se transformó en la actual Gerencia del Servicio Meteorológico Nacional pasando a formar parte de la Subdirección General Técnica de la CNA en 1995.

Which translates, roughly:
 * In 1989, upon the creation of the CNA, the National Weather Service was integrated as a dependent subagency of the General Subdivision of Water Administration, and in 1990, it became the current Agency of the National Weather Service, becoming a part of the General Technical Subdivision of the CNA in 1995.

Some of the terms do not have a direct translation, but it captures the gist of it. Just a little corection to the site... Tito xd (?!?) 20:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been correcting this on some of the pages ever since you brought it up on the SMN page. I believe the acknowlegments section now has it correct.  There may still be a few pages that have the incorrect "phrasology".Thegreatdr 20:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll keep looking, and I'll point you if there's any links that need any fixing. Tito xd (?!?) 20:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the ones I've found:
 * Allen 1980
 * Beryl 2000
 * Carlos 2003 (typo fix needed there too)
 * Diana 1990
 * Erika 2003
 * Gabrielle 1995
 * Gert 1993
 * Iselle 2002
 * Isidore 2002 (not really, but for consistency, SMN should be capitalized, IMHO)
 * Juliette 2001 (typo fix needed here as well)
 * Julio 2002
 * Kenna 2002
 * Larry 2003 (typo fix as well)
 * Marty 2003
 * Miriam 2000
 * Mitch 1998 (caps bugging me again :P)
 * Norman 2000
 * Pauline 1997
 * Rosa 2000
 * Roxanne 1995
 * Hope that helps, Tito xd (?!?) 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is helpful. I'll fix the pages over the next couple days. Thegreatdr 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it is fixed. Thegreatdr 02:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:TC Rainfall Climatology
What im saying is that the is alot of empty space between each section which make the article look very messy and that makes certain sections look very stubby. I hope this helps you understand what is wrong with the article. Tarret 00:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn '95
Hey, Mr.Roth, i was wondering if you could make a rainfall diagram for Marilyn of 1995, I put the rainfall totals in the article.Mitchazenia 22:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have the rainfall totals in a spreadsheet already. The highest total was just over 7" for Puerto Rico.  I'll contour it and throw the article online tomorrow morning.  Thegreatdr 02:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, Guadeloupe and U.S. Virgin Islands report rainfalls of 11.67 inches in Annaly, U.S. Virgin Islands and 9.06 inches in Morne Rouge, Guadeloupe.Mitchazenia 11:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was higher than that for the USVI. The map will be online shortly.  Thegreatdr 14:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Query about rainfall maps
Hi, I had a random thought about these maps last night. I'm aware you use spreadsheet data to produce the graphics, presumably the hard work is collating the data and not turning the spreadsheet into the graphic. This made me wonder: Would it be possible for you to produce a rainfall map showing the rainfall from all the cyclones in a year?--Nilfanion (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: US TC rainfall climo
Well, now that it has its own article, I think it should be expanded more. Also, it could use more sources; there are only two. However, I believe the info is 100% true, given who you are :) Also, I think Hawaii and maybe even Puerto Rico should be put in there to extend it. Ideally, maybe every state could get its own top 10. I'd be willing to do some research of my own to do a few states. Do you think that would be a good way to expand it? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I definitely have the information to create a top 10 for most states at work...this is not a problem. It will require time to organize it into a form that would be posted onto the main TC rainfall page at work.  Keep in mind though if we throw too much information about respective states onto the US page, and it becomes too long by wikipedia definition (like tropical cyclone and tropical cyclone rainfall climatology still are), there will be calls to create pages centered on each state.  I can easily throw Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam into the article...they all are part of the territory of the United States.  That's the simplest short term fix.  Thegreatdr 19:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Good point about the potential problem if each state has rainfall information. However, a good solution to that would be to just include the top 5 for each state. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Hermine (1998)
Theres a dispute going on at the talk:Tropical Storm Hermine (1998) page about flooding in florida and georgia. see the talk page for more details. Also a similar dispute has arisen in Hurricane Lili page as well. Storm05 11:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. It's mostly a Wikipedia issue, and I for one believe it is likely the flooding on the NCDC pages was at the very least partially related to Hermine. Still, we're sorry for the position that you've been put in, and we do appreciate having someone from the inside on our side. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, wow, I had no idea. Well, the last I heard it's still a free country, so I hope you'll still be allowed to contribute here. :) Oh, you know Michael Laca? Yea, I was surprised when he turned up. It's always nice to have people contributing that know a thing or two about the topic. All we need is Bill Proenza and we'd be set. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I've been thinking about the interaction of your work for NOAA and your contributions here. As long as you ensure a degree of care in how you make contributions to Wikipedia. If the work here does not directly relate to your work at NOAA, then there is no conflict. There may be an issue about how your views may be taken to be representative of NOAA, when they are in fact merely your own personal ones - I'm sure that is something you discussed with your manager. If that is felt to be an issue, add a disclaimer to your user page.

When your contributions do relate to your TC rainfall project (or other interests within your work), there is a potential conflict of interest. The most relevant guideline is this section. My view, is that the reports you created here count as reliable sources. We don't have access to the underlying data you used to create them, but we don't really need to have them. As a rule of thumb regarding issues like that with Hermine I'd suggest this: "If you are confident that something occurred, and comfortable with stating that on the HPC report, then feel free to include it on Wikipedia. On the other hand, if you are not confident enough to say so as a NOAA employee, then it shouldn't be added to Wikipedia."

If Wikipedia takes your HPC reports at face value, but not reading into them for hidden meaning, Wikipedia only carries information that you are comfortable with stating in your capacity as a NOAA employee in your work for NOAA. By following that guideline, the other editors will only include the facts you are confident about. If another editor reads beyond what you stated explicitly in the HPC reports, they are the ones breaking Wikipedia's guidelines (unless some other source backs up that fact). Hope that helps clarify this awkward situation for you.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That does help. =)  Luckily (which is the reason I started this project in the first place), TPC does not have a long history of including comprehensive rainfall amounts in their reports, so most of the time we have not run into a problem with "TPC said this but you said that" like we do in the Hermine situation.  I believe the most of the editors in wikipedia generally work in good faith.  If they didn't, I wouldn't have likely become an editor.  I do have to reconsider the placement on the web of the few "possible tropical storm" or "possible subtropical storms" listed within the TC rainfall climatology.  While I feel confident in my beliefs with these systems, the NWS/NOAA is supposed to speak with one voice on such matters.  They will, someday, be considered when the reanalysis reaches those years.  Thegreatdr 21:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Subtropical Storm Andrea (2007)
I am curious, did Subtropical Storm Andrea produce rainfall of over 1 inch anywhere along its path? If so, are there plans for it to be included in the tropical cyclone rainfall project? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, and enjoy your weekend :) Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I got some of the thingies for the Andrea GA nomination. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Isis (1998)
Hey, quick question/curious. Will the rainfall map for Hurricane Isis be expanded to include the United States? This NWS site says over 1 inch fell in Arizona, and this NCDC report says over 1 inch fell in California. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I really should go ahead and add that. There were some widely scattered 1" totals across the Southwest and Great Basin.  Thegreatdr 20:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks! Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, just a heads up; Tropical Storm Sebastien in 1995 never got a color-filled rainfall map. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Vince, Alpha, Beta and Gamma
Any chance you could make a rainfall map for these storms? I have stats for you:

Alpha:
 * Hispaniola - 15 inches
 * Dominican Republic - 7.9 inches

Beta:
 * Nicaragua - 6.39 inches
 * Honduras - 10-20 inches (peak of 21 at Trujillo)

Gamma:
 * Honduras - 4.44 inches (Unconfirmed)

Vince:
 * Spain - Average of less than 2 inches with a peak of 3.3 in Cordola.

Here ya go. I hope you can make them. Mit ch contribs 01:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

2006
WPAC: (I thought maybe you could try this):


 * 1) Bilis 06
 * 2) Chanchu 06
 * 3) Durian 06
 * 4) Ewiniar 06
 * 5) Xangsane 06

EPAC:


 * 1) Carlotta 06
 * 2) Emilia 06
 * 3) Gilma 06
 * 4) Illeana 06
 * 5) John 06
 * 6) Lane 06
 * 7) Norman 06
 * 8) Paul 06
 * 9) Rosa 06
 * 10) Sergio 06

ATLC:


 * 1) Chris 06
 * 2) Gordon 06
 * 3) Beryl 06
 * 4) Issac 06

2005
ATLC:


 * 1) Bret 05
 * 2) Emily 05
 * 3) Franklin 05
 * 4) Gert 05
 * 5) Jose 05
 * 6) Vince 05
 * 7) Beta 05
 * 8) Gamma 05

These can help a lot. Mit ch 32contribs 23:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Arthur (2002)
Heh, I'm in a bit of a conundrum here. I'm working on a list of North Carolina tropical cyclones, specifically the more recent storms, and I came to a standstill when I got to Arthur 02. There is no source I can find that attributes any damage or rainfall in North Carolina to Arthur, despite that it formed just offshore. I see that you have its rainfall maxima listed for a site in Florida, and for my own sanity, I was wondering if in your charts you had a rainfall maxima for North Carolina for the storm. Would it be at all possible to list that total on the rainfall site? Pretty please? :) Cheers. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, the file does not currently include North Carolina rainfall information. The NCDC server is currently down, so I can't look it up right now.  I'll try again tonight, and finally map out the rainfall.  There is a complication between what rainfall fell from Arthur's circulation and the rainfall along the front to its north across North Carolina.  Back then, I didn't have a definite methodology for the construction of the rainfall graphics, unlike the last several years.  I'll figure it out this evening...if there is separation in the rainfall pattern, I won't include the frontal rainfall.  If there isn't, it's all fair game.  Thegreatdr 08:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks a lot for that knowledge. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone rainfall by year
Just a quick heads up. The link to the 1994 hurricane season on this page links to the 1993 page. It's just a small link-o that can be easily fixed. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is done. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Pacific hurricanes rainfall
Do you have any suggestions for the [[List_of_Pacific_hurricanes section on list of Pacific hurricanes? Specifically, do you think coming up with top tens is original research? Also, I mainly used the TC maxima or its linked pages, but I also used two other sources, which mean that some of the tables here might be different from this page and the rainfall lists. Should the totals from the extra sources be removed and only the HOC TC maxima sources to ensure that there isn't a system that is missed for some reason? Thanks and keep up the good work at the HPC and here on Wikipedia. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are differences in the lists, one of the lists is not be correct. Feel free to make changes to the country by country page if you uncover additional amounts that were overlooked, but make sure to reference the changes.  I don't think it is original research as long as there are sources to the precipitation amounts...in my view, computation of ACE has a better chance of being original research than the TC rainfall lists.  Thegreatdr (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Ivan Ray Tannehill, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  23:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Climate of Florida, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Names of 1984 and 2006 Late November Nor'easters
Hi. Please reconsider that edit since it doesn't make sense:

Google finds for "Late November 2006 Nor'easter" outside Wikipedia: zero. sic!!!

Google finds for "Thanksgiving 2006 Nor'easter" outside WP: '''approc. 60.000'''.

I didn't check 1984 because it was before the WWW. Please move it back, in general the world isn't too stupid to know when it's Thanksgiving in the US. Otherwise it can be looked up at WP. (BTW It also is Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 and not Early September Hurrican of 1935, isn't it? Greetings. --213.155.224.232 18:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's not a question of POV, but I assume that we should use what NWS and other official sources use. The name the US government (through NWS, FEMA, NOAA, TPC, whatsoever) is using is an official name and not to be considered as POV. Only my opinion, and I am far far away from the US... --213.155.224.232 18:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This system's "name", from HPC, was SOUTHEASTERN COASTAL STORM. The NWS does not name extratropical cyclones. Historically, if a name has been imposed on an extratropical cyclone in the United States, it has been by the media. Thegreatdr 18:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Track maps
Hey, I reverted your change to the table on my userpage. This isn't because it was against any rules; but is against the purpose of what that comments section is for. In addition to adding many more track maps, I am redoing the Atlantic and EPac maps to show the extratropical periods; that's what the "update needed" comments refer to. I agree with you that the WPac best track is suspicious, however we can't do anything about that here (unfortunately). If I have made a mistake in converting the BT data to a track map (got the name wrong for example); please list it at User:Nilfanion/Errors. If the error is in the best track and I've faithfully copied it, reproducing that error, we are stuck with it until the track data is updated :(--Nilfanion (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand better now. Thanks for the response.  Thegreatdr 17:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #8
The January issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Wilma and class
Unfortunately, while info present in the article may be of B-class standard, the writing and layout of the article isn't. And until that's fixed it shouldn't be upgraded. – Chacor 18:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks better, but there's a huge block of text under impact without any citations. In my opinion, if possible, the article should probably be re-written, but as it is right now it's probably not too far off B, but not quite B yet. – Chacor 19:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Bit of help on broader scale US weather
Seeing as you have been working for the NWS in various roles for a considerable time, I'd imagine you might be in a position to be of assistance here. I'm thinking of making a composite image of the Continental US from NEXRAD data, for possible use in that article. As I want a snapshot of the weather at a particular time, I think it would be sensible to choose a moment when a major hurricane was making landfall, they look "pretty" after all. However, I have no real knowledge of the overall synoptic situation at these moments in time. If you are aware of any significant inland storms happening concurrently with the landfall of a hurricane (no earlier than Floyd), I'd appreciate it if you let me know thanks.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * National NEXRAD composites can be compared with the Daily Weather Map series to figure out if there was a significant inland storm during a hurricane impact. Of course, it all depends on what you consider significant:  tornadoes, wind, large temperature swing, or significant rainfall.  The related links are provided within this paragraph. Thegreatdr 17:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I figured there were helpful sites out there; NOAA has a lot online after all (not least due to your efforts) ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #9
The February issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for getting something done on 1994 Pacific typhoon season! Real life work means that that is well down the priority list. I'll probably have a go at finishing it by the end of the month, as school's out for me in 9 days. Heh. Thanks again. – Chacor 13:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ARCHIVE
Hi DR, your talk page is getting a little long (100 kb at present). You might want to consider archiving parts of it. Also, I replied to your UTC question re. the 1994 PTS at the talk page. Cheers, – Chacor 02:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

POV
In the names section, the opening piece stated "The name Hazen was removed from the list for no apparent reason." I'm sure there was a reason, we just don't know it and I don't think we should imply that JTWC removed names from the list just because they felt like it, so I changed it. -- § Hurricane E  RIC § archive 00:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Yeah, I agree that shouldn't be in there.  Thegreatdr 22:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Strong Anticyclone
Thanks for the tip ;) Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Dates in references
Hey there DR, I've noticed you've been using " YYYY-MM-DD " in your refs. If you go to your preferences you can specify how dates look. Therefore we generally use " YYYY-MM-DD " when citing stuff, as it will automatically convert (2006-12-06 should display as "2006-12-06" with no prefs set, or as "6 December 2006" or "December 6, 2006" depending on your preferences). Cheers! – Chacor 05:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)/ re-signed, – Chacor 02:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I started doing your method a month or two ago. Some of my old work may still be lurking out there though.  Thegreatdr 11:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

CLASS
Could you please tell how to use that site. I'm about to shoot myself in the head. Looked at the demo on their help page and it told me to go to a Generate Map link that doesn't exist. I feel more lost than Jimmy Hoffa. Could you save my sanity? -- § Hurricane E  RIC § archive 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Near-equatorial trough
Hi DR, could you work some magic on near-equatorial trough (which is currently a redirect to trough (meteorology)? Anything you can get in, even a stub, would be appreciated. Thanks! – Chacor 11:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Age category
Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options: If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 12:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Using an age group category, such as Category:Wikipedians in their 30s
 * Using a decade category, such as Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s.

Tropical cyclone basins
Hello, doc. Do you know where I could look for more info about the Southern Hemisphere basins, for Tropical cyclone basins? I added a bit of detail for the Northern Hemisphere (which could use a fact-check, by the way ;)) but I have no clue where to look for SHem averages and other info. There's also some ambiguity between basins that makes me a bit confused (as I don't follow storms "down there" as much). Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 22:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

MFEM
Just curious, why did you change my "{MFEM}" links to "{MFEM}" in this edit?  howcheng  {MFEM} 17:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It was accidental. I've noticed my PC occasionally replaces the word MFEM with MFEM, and have no idea why.  Do you know how to fix this type of error?  Thegreatdr 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh that's just weird because you just did it again... ha. (For anyone who stumbles into this conversation, the word that gets replaced by "MFEM" is "c-h-a-t" (with dashes inserted so that hopefully whatever is doing this replacement won't do it again)).  howcheng  {MFEM} 05:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you know how I can get help with this problem? It has happenned in wikipedia at least once before.  Thegreatdr 14:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Try Reference desk/Computing.  howcheng  {MFEM} 15:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

MFEM redux
Hi, I noticed you still have this problem with the "MFEM". Have you tried editing in a different browser? Say switch from IE to Firefox (or vice versa)? Or maybe try Opera? It's kind of annoying and really has the potential to mess up an article, since you can't seem to change it back. Regards,  howcheng  {MFEM} 18:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can try switching browsers and see if it's any different, but I can tell, it has shown up in numerous software applications on this computer. It's not just Firefox.  Thegreatdr 20:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it a work computer, or a home computer? Because if it's work... does MFEM stand for anything? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Home. MFEM stands for nothing I know of workwise.  Thegreatdr 12:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing that occurs is some sort of parental control software, because the word "MFEM" is usually caught by those, but that's a wild guess. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 22:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I'm 34, I don't think that's it. =)  Thegreatdr 00:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh. Maybe checking it with AdAware would give some insight. I don't know... Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 00:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Mamie1982031912GMS2IR.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mamie1982031912GMS2IR.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 21:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Zonalflow.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Zonalflow.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 14:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Zonalflowexample.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Zonalflowexample.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging
It did the same thing with two images within Extratropical cyclone the other day; it has done this with other images over the past year. They were tagged as being from the US government, and specifically, from the Climate Prediction center. First, why did you bot tag them? Second, why does your bot seem to take 6-9 months to tag images that it thinks have not been tagged properly? Thegreatdr 13:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to Image:Zonalflow.gif and Image:Zonalflowexample.gif, they were tagged by User:Ccwaters. OrphanBot is merely reporting that fact to you. --Carnildo 18:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Tornado
While I wouldn't want to seem in violation of WP:OWN, I do believe that changes should be less drastic, otherwise a Featured Article Review might be in order. Would you be opposed to reverting to the earlier version, and working slowly from there, with discussion at the talk page to help collaborate. We could adapt the article to be more structured without leaving it disrupted while we make changes. Please respond at the article's talk page. Thanks. - Running On  Brains  15:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Article request
Hi DR, I noticed when cleaning up and updating TCFA that Tropical Analysis and Forecasting Branch and Satellite Analysis Branch are both non-existent articles I don't suppose you have enough info to create articles for them? Thanks! – Chacor 15:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hilda
I reduced it to a stub mainly because it shouldn't have been a start in the first place. There also needs to be more sources...there are really only two at this point. I'll re-raise it back to start if the impact gets expanded (since those sections are quite small, I might put stubsection on it). --Core desat 21:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see 5 separate sources (with the other 5 NHC), but no matter. Thegreatdr 21:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Too many capitals
Hello. Please see my edit to List of wettest tropical cyclones by country. That article needs a lot more of the same. See Manual of Style. Michael Hardy 18:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your view of WP:NPOV
Please read WP:NPOV carefully. "This discussion is ripe with POV, and shouldn't exist within wikipedia, let alone this project." is ridiculous. You're saying that people cannot make judgements in discussions, because it would be POV? NPOV only applies to articles. People take sides when formulating opinions. It's a part of consensus gathering. It is not POV to do so. Obviously this article was poorly written enough to justify a clear consensus of merging. Please, I'd suggest you thoroughly re-read the policy before applying it wrongly. Storm05's poor writing is something we do not want to encourage within this project. We want good, quality articles, not poorly-written articles on storms that did nothing. Sorry if this comes across snappy, I'm not in a great mood. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 16:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hurricanehink's viewpoint "why can't you use this effort to a storm that actually affected land?" doesn't even apply to the Dora article and shouldn't be in its talk page. I saw this fitting into NPOV.  Chacor's and Splot's comments like "don't waste your time", as I see it, fit into WP:NOT because they weren't constuctive to the article being created.  My comments don't reflect the voting.  You could vote to merge the Dora article into toaster and it wouldn't violate wikipedia policy.  I don't think the article is badly written, the way it looks now (compared to other neglected hurricane related articles within our project).  It looks like the discussion got off to a sour note early on when Chacor felt slighted, and hasn't improved.  Thegreatdr 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "If you really feel his writing is not good, help him with it. " Do you really think we haven't tried? His is one of the worst, possibly. Bad spelling, bad grammar, bad punctuation, bad overall. We do not need more poor writing. We don't have time to clean it up - we're all working on BETTERING his other articles already. We've even found evidence of copyright violations in his past articles. We cannot afford to let those slip through the cracks. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 02:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't let people on this project discourage you from contibuting or adding articles you think are needed. Every little bit helps. I know there's a bit of NPOV favoring landfalling tropical cyclones over all others, but it honestly shouldn't matter. The project is not called WP: Landfalling tropical cyclones. I don't see your articles as being worse than the remaining stubby hurricane/typhoon season articles that have yet to be filled out from their initial creation months and years ago. If people start getting personal with you, instead of being productive to the articles you create, have them read WP:NOT. Even better, if they think your articles need improvement, tell them to be bold. Wikipedia is not a police state. Thegreatdr 17:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We KNOW about BATTLEGROUND. It wouldn't be a battleground if Storm05 wrote better and didn't always fight back incivilly (you'll find plenty of proof of that around WP). "Be bold"? Yes, we have been bold, and merged his worse articles. We have improved his slightly better ones. But a continuous pattern like this cannot be tolerated. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 02:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And might I add, most importantly – this discussion ENDED IN NOVEMBER 2006. The article as it was deserved merging. You, for NO REASON WHATSOEVER, reopened the discussion today. Why? The discussion is not about the sandbox as it is now. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 02:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "I'm talking about how the article looks now, since he's been modifying it lately. I didn't see its state months ago." And the original discussion was about the article as it was when it was merged, and has nothing to do with his current sandbox. There was no need whatsoever to resurrect the discussion, especially in such a provoking way imo. In other words, you've taken the discussion we had completely out-of-context. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 03:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like mention here that we've pretty much tried everything with Storm05, but he hasn't improved - in fact, his writing has actually gotten worse since we've been giving him advice. Encouraging him is going to cause him to continue to write bad articles that have either no content or could have copyright issues (in fact, he was blocked a couple months ago for uploading copyvio images and asserting that they were public domain). Storm05 isn't the most civil editor around, either - he is extremely confrontational and has been warned and blocked for as much.

On another note, it's impossible to have a non-POV discussion - that is the nature of discussion: people aren't going to agree all the time. It isn't a good idea to reopen old discussions (start new ones), as that discussion on Dora is not about the current Dora sandbox; things change in six months, and little in the previous discussion was still valid. Please reread WP:NPOV, WP:MERGE, and WP:NOT. Granted, Chacor isn't really helping the situation by being provocative. --Core desat 04:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a timeline of events as I think went down:
 * You saw Storm05 improving his sandbox.
 * You checked the talk page of the sandbox, which redirects to Talk:Hurricane Dora (1999), which contains the merge discussion from last time.
 * You mistook a discussion from a half-year ago about the article as it was then, when it was in the main article space for an ongoing discussion about the sandbox.
 * Chaos erupts.

If this is so, you are very mistaken, and I'd appreciate if you apologised. If this isn't what happened, I'd like to ask what exactly happened, then. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 04:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have archived the section in question to avoid a re-occurrence of the mistake by others. A simple, but useful tip which I myself use, as should everyone: Always check timestamps on messages. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 04:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No mistake. I saw the timestamp.  If it was no longer a current discussion, in my view, it should have been archived.  Isn't that how it's normally dealt with on the main TC project page?  Thegreatdr 06:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all completed discussions need be archived if it doesn't hinder viewing the page. The talk page was NOT linked to anything. Accusations of slander? WP:CIV. When something is true, it's not slander. My high respect for you has dropped significantly. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 07:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but where are your so-called accusations of slander? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 07:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 14:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa!, i come back only to see a war going on and accuations that will make the the argument over the Iraq War and the 2006 congressional election campagin look like a food fight in kindergarden class with devestating results. Storm05 11:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Dora's aftermath
Well, yes and no. Yes, the discussion is technically still active, but if it's been a very long time, the points raised in that discussion may no longer be valid, as was the case here. It's usually a good idea to start a new discussion rather than continue the old one. Also, there is currently no article for that talk page, and the talk page on Storm05's sandbox article redirects to Talk:Hurricane Dora (1999) (I will blank that redirect). It's a good idea to make sure there's an article to talk about before talking about it, since moves to mainspace that end up getting merged can result in confusing redirect webs. --Core desat 06:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the portion about it being poorly written (with no comments on how to improve it) was no longer valid. But the bulk of my argument still stands.  Telling people what to do, or not to do, can't be constructive and will serve to alienate people from the project, even if they're not involved in the debate.  It sets a bad climate within the project, and appears to be against the concept of wikipedia.  Personal attacks should be confined to a personal page, not an article page.  That way it stays relatively personal.  I saw a separate Dora article in the sandbox being improved.  So...if we want to comment on that article...we would go to that individual's talk page? Thegreatdr 06:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 06:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, perhaps i should archive the discussions on my talk page to make sure this never happens again. And i agree with User:Thegreatdr, telling a user what he/she can or cannot do is not constructive and hurts the wikipedia as a whole. Also saying that a person is a bad user and stuff like: "His is one of the worst, possibly. Bad spelling, bad grammar, bad punctuation, bad overall." and, "we've pretty much tried everything with Storm05, but he hasn't improved - in fact, his writing has actually gotten worse since we've been giving him advice. Encouraging him is going to cause him to continue to write bad articles that have either no content or could have copyright issues (in fact, he was blocked a couple months ago for uploading copyvio images and asserting that they were public domain). Storm05 isn't the most civil editor around, either - he is extremely confrontational and has been warned and blocked for as much."

All the stuff shown above happened along time ago and it appears that they were hastly posted (with the hint of ill-judgement, targeting or just the fact it was from frustration, we will probably never know) with out realization that i tried explain to the users with no avail. However users can change and intolerance can have its limits (which was not the case recently).Storm05 13:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also see WP:EQ,WP:DR and WP:KEEPCOOL.Storm05 13:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See also Use common sense, this was COMPLETELY unnecessary storm05. You've made no effort to find out what this is about and chose to jump in in the stupidest, worse possible way. Please, you've caused enough trouble. 218.186.9.5 14:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Moldy talk pages
Well, archiving is usually a good sign that a conversation is inactive, but if an issue is still outstanding, then you are always a) allowed to bring an archived thread back to the main article talk page for consideration, and b) to answer unaddressed issues. In this case, the thread was old (as the article had been merged before the beginning of 2007), and the issue had been addressed a long while ago; you didn't know that, so no big deal. Sadly there is no guideline, as far as I know, about the expiration date of old threads; you just happened to stumble upon a previously thorny issue. That said, if you're not sure whether something is old or not, feel free to begin a new thread, as the bigger risk of posting within old discussions is that no one will see the new post. Discussion is always welcome (except in that issue :P... jk), and for the record, I personally do not find your actions to be problematic at all. I've seen old threads revived all the time, so I don't see the evil... Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 06:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

GW
I'm curious... what is so badly wrong with global warming? William M. Connolley 10:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi thegreatdr. I have been viewing your exchange with Connolley at his talk page. I had no idea you are a climatologist. That makes your statements all the more valid. The problem with these article "owners" is that they genuinely think it's their job to review each new submission, and refine it so it is perfect for inclusion in the article. that is really how they think, and they would not even disagree with my phrasing of it, probably. What they don't realize is that most articles here evolve because many people add material over time, and people generally let the process flow.


 * Perhaps you could help to make them aware, that really is the way things usually work here, I'm not just saying that. it's true whether the topic is geraniums, or the Mideast conflict, or existentialism, or whatever. No one usually scuritinizes every single new edit to see if it fits in with some "existing" tone of the article, and no one scrutinizes valid genuine information to see if the sources are "weighted" this way or that, or whatever word these owners use. So thanks for your statements, Doctor. Good to have you on board. See you. --Sm8900 13:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dave
WOW... it's been FOREVER!!! It's great to hear from you! I think the last time I saw you was with Jim and Todd, before Andrew hit... so probably '90 or '91? How have you been? You're at HPC now...very, very cool! I still live in Miami and I'm still chasing (when I can get away from work). For the last ten years I've been working in the Web Marketing department at Royal Caribbean International and Celebrity Cruises. I was just at a storm chaser 'get-together' at Jim's place in the Keys a couple of months ago. I got to see a bunch of the old chasing crowd and meet several of the new ones, Jack Beven was there too. I haven't heard from Todd in awhile... he sent me an e-mail the day Katrina peaked in the Gulf and I sent him a quick note back, but that's going on two years already. I guess I should e-mail him soon...haha. Do you ever come down to South Florida anymore? If you do, let me know, I can get a hold of Jim and we can all hang out. Feel free to e-mail me directly through my website: Tropmet.com --Michael Laca 18:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello
I have read several of your edits and comments on Talk pages and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Do you visit www.climateaudit.org at all? It is Steve McIntyre's blog and it gets posts from lots of climatolgists and other scientists. I hope to see you contribute there and look forward to more of your contributions here as well.RonCram 11:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane tracking
I have deleted Hurricane tracking. This is a note for your convenience, since you stated "If you all decide to delete, instead of renaming this article, let me know. I'll create a stub for tropical cyclone track forecasting, which will make the decision clearer if this comes up in the future, because the topic will already be covered." on the now-deleted talk page. Cheers, &mdash; Scientizzle 01:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Greensburg, Kansas Tornado
I may have to change the article name, if a major outbreak occurs today. This was a name proposed by a user who suggested the creation of this article, which i've created. It's ok for now to be removed, but probably the current tag will be reput back on, if the high risk level materialized today and thus may warrant a name change especially if additional fatal tornadoes occur. Already yesterday, there were two fatal tornadoes.I will monitor the situation through of today as already severe storms are blossoming across Nebraska, South Dakota and Colorado. JForget 19:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the title considering it is a three-day event now, several reports now today. For the snow portion, I've spotted other outbreaks (including Super Outbreak and the Entreprise Outbreak (March 1, 2007), which mentionned about the wintry precipitation. My winter article i've created in February also has a section about the tornadoes in the southeast. I haven't seen it as a problem but if that it is better to change the article, the Wikiproject users can discuss it.JForget 20:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Met template
Thanks for the info. I'll look into what those templates do over the next couple days; once thats done I'll work out somethings to try.

As for the redlinks, the reason is simple enough. By mistake, you posted your message to my commons: talk page not my Wikipedia one.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave a comment
I gave a comment in the second to last section I think, it should be the last thing there. Homestarmy 11:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Surface Weather Analysis left
Hey, I left an extensive peer review at WP:PR for your request on Surface weather analysis. Not sure if you noticed or not. You might want to check it out. --Jayron32| talk | contribs 05:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

RE:Surface Weather Analysis
It's looking a lot better, especially the lead. I suggest getting the League of Copyeditors to look at it for a good copy edit. I can go through it a bit later and give it a preliminary one, but there are a lot of better editors than at copyediting than I.  Darth  griz 98 23:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock!
I've been autoblocked for a day. Apparently someone accessed one of my IP addresses, sounds like the work related one. Good luck guys. Thegreatdr 21:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's really weird! Not sure what to say. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked out Goblez page...and it happenned to at least 1/2 dozen people. Thegreatdr 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look and nothing shows up under autoblocks for Thegreatdr. Whats the exact message you get? Mail me if you prefer. Mind you I'm off to bed fairly soon... William M. Connolley 21:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record: no one hacked your computer. A few squid cache servers were added to the Wikimedia Foundation rotation of servers, and they were not configured properly, so the MediaWiki software thought all the traffic was originating from them, not just coming through them. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 23:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations not required by Manual of Style
Hi! I've noticed that you've tagged several weather-related articles as lacking references (e.g., Lapse rate), because they didn't contain inline citations. However, inline citations are not required by WP:CITE and I can't find anywhere else where they are described as required. In fact, WP:CITE suggests that individual dubious facts be labeled with fact.

Also, the definition of B-class articles does not require inline citations (as far as I can see): certainly, Good Articles and FA articles require them.

I'm thinking that you are marking up reasonable articles with lots of warnings that may not justified... Is there material in Lapse rate that is dubious?

Thanks! hike395 01:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

PTS 1994
Thanks for pushing the dates back, I've been fairly busy IRL. Would you mind helping fill in some of the storms if you have time? Thanks. – Chacor 02:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC review of Great Storm of 1975
This article was nominated on 25 April and you tagged it as under review on 5 May. It appears as though it should have been placed on hold, but it was not. It has been 2 weeks (holds are typically for no more than 7 days) and there is still not a result. Please determine the GA status of this article based on WP:WIAGA. Regards, Lara Love  T / C  17:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean that you're not used to being the sole reviewer of a GAN. Peer reviews have multiple reviewers, but GAs are listed and one editor takes on the task of reviewing it. If you feel you need assistance, ask one of the editors who participates in GAN reviews. If you don't feel you have the knowledge or ability to conduct an adequate review on your own, consider participating in WP:GA/Rs instead. Regards, Lara Love  T / C  05:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Weather fronts on hold
Hey, I reviewed the WP:GAC nominee Weather fronts, and I had some concerns before I promoted it as a Good Article. See the talk page there for more info. The hold will last 7 days, and if fixes are not made by then the article will have to be failed. However, given your active state at Wikipedia, I anticipate that you can make these relatively minor fixes. Good luck, and drop me a line at my talk page if you have any questions. --Jayron32| talk | contribs 05:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar
And nice of you to add it to my trophy case for me. In return, here's a smile to brighten your day--Jayron32| talk | contribs 02:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)



has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Tropical cyclone
Since apparently that peer review has stalled, what do you think about sending the article to FAC? (Although there was a comment about it lacking some Global warming dissent, which I'm not that sure about, and may merit looking into.) Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's send it along. At least we tried.  Thegreatdr 19:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All right. By the way, I added half a paragraph to the Global warming subsection, mostly about Landsea's views. What do you think about that one? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 06:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, especially since even Emanuel (so I thought) only said that the increase in hurricane strength would be on the order of 10% due to anthropogenic/global warming, which is 5-15 knots for most tropical cyclones. That's roughly the error in intensity estimates nowadays in the Atlantic basin (similar to the global warming signal still lying within the errors of thermometry temperaturewise).  This is why global/anthropogenic warming is hotly debated in all circles.  Thegreatdr 12:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey! Thanks. :) No problem at all. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... some help around here? Particularly, I have no idea how to clarify what the deep mean flow layer is. A quick stub could be helpful, or maybe just explaining at what it is would be really helpful. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I am extremely happy with the modified version of global warming, and it met with agreement. This is what Wikipedia is all about :-)  Thanks to all!  JeopardyTempest 08:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Understanding warm bias in the temperature record
I know you have an interest in global warming. As you may know, there are serious problems with the temperature record being biased by UHI or similar warming biases related to land use changes, etc. ClimateAudit.org is organizing an effort to photograph sites. Understanding the issue will help you be a better editor and improve the quality of Wikipedia articles on AGW. If you are interested, you could be a part of the effort. Please take a look here. RonCram 05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will give you a few links that will speed you along when you find the time (if you can). The effort is led by Anthony Watts, a regular contributor to ClimateAudit.org.  Some of the pictures indicate that increasing temperatures are probably a result of changes at temperature stations. The website is here.  Steve McIntyre fully supports the effort.  And so does Roger Pielke Sr. RonCram 07:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted adjustments to the temperature record
The Global warming controversy article needs to address the controversy around unwarranted government adjustments to the temperature record. I am hoping you may be able to help with this. Compare the historical temperatures ranges in the two images and relative changes to years 1935 and 1998. The image from 1999 can be found here. The image from 2007 is here. In 1999, temps for 1935 and 1998 were the same. However, by 2007 the temp for 1998 was considerable higher than 1935. I have done enough reading now to be convinced that the 1990s were NOT warmer than the dust bowl years of the 1930s. I believe alarmists like Jim Hansen are playing with the temperature record. In effect, these "adjustments" to the temperature record are done in order to create evidence of global warming. I need some help locating additional reliable sources on temperature adjustments. If you would like to participate in this effort, you can go to my User Page and click the "Email this user" button and we can discuss where this information may be found.RonCram 11:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with your bot?
It has reviewed a number of satellite images including in the TC wikiproject, which has appropriate documentation and links where possible, and it appears to be suggestion mass deletions. Do you see anything missing within their documentation (i.e, Image:Levi1997052603GMS5VS.jpg)? I'm going to inform the TC wikiproject that they're about to lose of number of images because of this bot. Thegreatdr 17:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the images. :-) They're being deleted on the English Wikipedia because they're now available on Wikimedia Commons. You (and the other members of the Wikiproject) will not notice any difference. — M ETS 501 (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Curvature
D'oh! I don't know why I thought it was longitude. I guess that's what happens when I edit at the wee hours of the night... Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 17:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

DC Meetup notice
Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Maryland, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 00:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the award. I appreciate the barnstar. You yourself have done wonders for WikiProject Tropical Cyclones through your rainfall data. Thanks again. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

States of Mexico
Hi there, this is not a map, but in this site are listed the oficial names of the mexican states: Mexico's Presidency, and a little history about the political transformation of Baja California from territorial party, district, territory, burough, territory again, state: Baja Califonia State Goverment. Sadly, the usage of Baja California Norte is so extended, even by many mexicans (bajacalifornians included). If you google "Baja California Norte" you will find houndreds of related links, but this doesnt make it right. Wikipedia could be the best site to find the correct information about Baja California. JC 13:00, 22 July 2007 (PST)

Re: SEPAC tracks / Potential additions spreadsheet
Heh, I think Eric and I were getting a little desperate there. Over the past few years, whenever the tropics were quiet, we'd try and find unnoticed storms, especially in the unlikely basins such as Mediterranean, South Atlantic, and Southeast Pacific. BTW, is the re-analysis spreadsheet for potential new storms from 1915 to the present? Are you sworn to secrecy to keep it for your eyes only, or might you possibly be able to email it to me (only for curiosity purposes, I've been dying without any Hurdat updates since 2005). Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I just thought I'd ask. Thanks for offering, but that sounds like a lot of work for the non-developing depressions; however, if you do have some downtime and you want to, could you add the non-developing depressions for some of the recent seasons? Keep up the great work, as always. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to say that I hope you enjoy your semi-break. Good luck with those projects. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane article in need of help.
There has been some discussion over the status of Hurricane Georges vis-a-vis the good article standards. Please see the discussion at good article review. Your help and expertise are needed. Thanks. --Jayron32| talk | contribs 01:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Erin
I never said they should be left out. You will notice I did not revert your information totally. The info does deserve a mention. However, the infobox should use operational information. If the NHC lists 50 mph in its monthly summary table at the bottom of the TWSes, then fine, use 45 kt. But if it uses 40 mph then the box should continue to say 35 kt. Until such a time, these readings were not in any official advisory and should not be used in the infobox. – Chacor 15:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing me of breaking WP:NPOV by being political? Is that it? The article can say that the highest winds were not used in any advisory, and that would solve the inconsistency issue. Alternatively, a note could be added next to the infobox value that there were higher winds recorded but not given in official advisories, but the infobox should continue to contain the official peak value. – Chacor 16:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Greatest Hurricane Seasons of All Time
Hink and I thought this would be kind of fun. We're going around to some of our resident hurricane enthusiasts and asking them the same question: Worldwide, which season of what basin do you think earns the title 'The Greatest Season of All Time'. List your top five picks with a reason for at least your number one pick. It's not a big deal, but I thought it would be fun and interesting to hear what some of those really into it think. -- § Hurricane E  RIC  archive 21:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Explain
Please explain your revert of Talk:Tropical Storm Erin (2007). The IP was arguing this edit. Notice that the IP that made that edit has indeed committed various vandalism (see its talk page). Please do not restore trolling without proper reason. – Chacor 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See also WP:DFTT, WP:RPA, WP:DENY. – Chacor 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We should not give any recognition to trolls. The IP vandalised, accused me of vandalism (when I was actually reverting vandalism) - which is a violation of WP:CIV and arguably, to a stretch, WP:NPA. Personal attacks should be removed on sight. – Chacor 14:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you even READ the edit? It has nothing to do with adding the word "landcane" in the article. It has to do with the fact that while the storm was active and the HPC was issuing advisories on it as a TD, the IP replaced the term "tropical depression" with "landcane" in the active storm information box. That was the vandalism. That vandalism has nothing to do with whether or not that term should be in the article otherwise. – Chacor 14:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to butt in here, but it's vandalism because "landcane" isn't a valid meteorological term or category that is used to define a tropical cyclone at any stage - it's a neologism someone made up. We don't acknowledge such things unless they have some basis in reality, which this doesn't, and that makes it vandalism. Chacor's reversion was in line with guidelines, so there was no real need to dispute it. The anonymous IP was clearly trolling (just look at the tone of his talk page posts), and we don't acknowledge trolls. --Core desat 14:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Landcane and landphoon are meteorologically recognized terms (at least within the TC community) for MCSs over land that mimic tropical cyclones. They occur in Australia frequently.  You can ask Margie if you'd like; it's been used with the TC email list for years.  It's not like the guy made up the term himself...if he did, he got really lucky.  I've heard the terms in use for at least a decade, though you're right, not usually with a remnant tropical cyclone.  Thegreatdr 14:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem then is that the IP wasn't doing himself any favors to begin with by being snappy on the talk page, and had been warned for vandalism. The first IP to add "landcane" to the article had vandalized the Dean article two days earlier (it was not a Cat 5 at that point). While he (and you) could have been more civil about it after it heated up, I don't think Chacor is trying to flame war or edit war over this, and both of you need to at least try to assume good faith in these matters. Several admins agreed that the edit was vandalism. As for luck, things like that do happen. --Core desat 14:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of the Dean attack. I'd been taking some time off until Erin, and thought its history was more interesting than Dean (just a personal view as I don't root on major hurricanes for obvious reasons).  Anyhow, if the guy has a history of it, I could see how it could be interpreted as vandalism by those aware of the previous instances.  However, I was unaware of the Dean instance and was just judging this one edit on its own merit, assuming good faith.  Shouldn't good faith work both ways?  Thegreatdr 15:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the comments on the talk page by one of the involved IPs pretty much threw good faith out the window; they were classic trolling ("well I'm right and you're not, Chacor must be a vandal"), which I've seen tons of. That and the HPC never called it a "landcane" or "landphoon" or "landwhatever" in any advisory; in fact, at the time it was added, Erin was still a TD. Besides, there are specific terms that can be used in the infobox; any other term breaks it, and "landcane" breaks the infobox. --Core desat 15:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then all that was needed was a statement that Landcane is not a category for infoboxes. That's all.  It didn't require short sentences merely stating "vandalism" with no "because".  How isn't that inflamatory?  Do inflamatory comments require an equally inflamatory response?  I don't think they do.  I have to admit, on here, my comments do look inflamatory even with all the "may and believes" I've been throwing in there.  Personally, I'm still not sure of all the wikipedia nuances and think those controlling the various pages sometimes just respond in kind, which isn't any better behavior than the violators, in my view.  Thegreatdr 15:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Well, after 19 months, most people will generally assume you do know the various policies and guidelines, so you should become familiar with them. Routine vandalism reverts are just that - they're reverts, because it's usually clear that the intent was to vandalize. No one owns any page, though some people (like Chacor) care that only correct information is posted on it, and accusing him of inciting a flame war and saying he "may be guilty" is not a good way to respond and is a personal attack. Don't use words like that when it isn't the case because it only causes the situation to get worse - while sometimes we don't assume good faith, we never assume bad faith without proper reason. --Core desat 15:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see people consistently, harshly criticizing other's input on these pages as a own problem. I could equally see your comment as a personal attack, but I'm taking it as constructive criticism.  If that's a personal attack, I'll find better ways of saying what I mean than that...but there are only so many ways you say you think someone is violating the rules on here.  Thegreatdr 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I would agree that making accusations is consistent with a personal attack. For Dora, you accused him of defamation, which can be seen as a legal threat. Please just drop the matter and don't blow it out of proportion. --Core desat 15:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Landphoon
Sorry, but I've nominated this on AFD. Feel free to participate in the discussion. --Core desat 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Toronto_Magnetic_and_Meteorological_Observatory
I think you may have forgotten about this. Lara Love   ♥   13:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to go for GA on Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory?
I think we've hit all the points your brought up. The only dangling one is the question about whether or not to call it "oldest". Maury 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oopsee, didn't notice LaraLove's note above... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maury Markowitz (talk • contribs) 19:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tracks
Hey, do you have any best track data for the seven unnamed storms at 1988 Atlantic hurricane season? I don't know how to use it to make track maps, but I will give it to someone who can. Good kitty 22:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * TPC has the six hour data hidden away somewhere internally. However, the depression tracks are shown here for 1988.  Thegreatdr 16:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't think that will work. What did you do to make the rainfall graphics? Good kitty 01:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For track, I used the Daily Weather Map series or sketched in the track from the Atlantic tropical weather system seasonal article. For years between 1980 and 1987, I was completely reliant on daily weather maps.  Thegreatdr (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A little off-topic question
Since you're a meteorologist, can you tell me exactly what these maps mean? I know that the different 'mb' maps represent different levels of the atmosphere, but my questions are on are the 850 mb (how far above the surface is that generally?) and the "2M Temperature, 2M Relative Humidity,& 10M Wind" (what exactly is that? Is this supposed to be close to a surface map?)  Thanks in advance! Gopher backer 21:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are model derived fields. 2 meters just is a rounded measurement of the usual height temperature/moisture is measured near ground level (1.5 meters).  Just think of it as the temperature and relative humidity you see reported on the news.  Models themselves still don't have a good handle of 2 meter temperature, which is why MOS (model output statistics) still exist.  10 meters is just the standard height of wind measurement.  When you hear on the news that the wind is south at 10 mph, it is at the 10 meter (33 foot) level.  Sorry about the delay in the response.  Thegreatdr 11:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Kona storm and Kona low
I just noticed that you created Kona low. Do you recommend merging Kona storm into that article? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah...didn't realize the other article existed. It looks like Kona Low has most of the relevant information.  If there is anything that can be added from Kona Storm into Kona Low, it should be added and Kona Storm should be made a redirect to Kona Low.  Thegreatdr 11:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would generally agree, but my concern is threefold: 1) The term, "Kona storm", is used primarily in Hawaii, but there may be non-Hawaiian uses as well. Is this the most common use of the term, or is it "Kona low".  2) Do the two articles differ in any way? 3) Is there anything to merge, or would a redirect suffice? Thanks for your help. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 04:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Kona Low is the most used term. A blurb within the article could mention that it is referred to as a Kona Storm as well.  Thegreatdr (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WPTC Active Members
Hey, I'm trying to get a list of active users together. Could you sign your name here? --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Winter storms
There is a discussion started by User:Juliancolton at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology about a proposed/possible new WikiProject called WikiProject Winter storms. Feel free to voice your opinion on the proposal.-- JForget 01:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wind Shear GAC
Your nomination of wind shear for GAC has finally passed! Juliancolton (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Effects of Tropical cyclones
Your GAC nomination of Effects of tropical cyclones should pass, but the problem is there is too much empty space in the lede. If this is addressed, it should pass. Juliancolton (talk) ( Happy New Year! ) 15:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Julian, that is not a problem, especially for GAC. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Erin dissipation date
I talked about it with the people who were in WPTC IRC at the time; consensus there led to that change. If I remember correctly, later that day, the consensus changed; I guess I just forgot to change it back. If you feel that it's wrong, by all means, change it. Indeed, the Erin TCR will be very interesting. -- RattleMan 01:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. The change is made.  Unlike Erin's nomenclature over Oklahoma, this falls under clearer standard NWS practices.  Thegreatdr (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)