Jump to content

User talk:Pierre cb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mohammadsdtmnd (talk | contribs) at 11:00, 18 November 2016 (→Radar>>Talk>>Clarification). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

February 2006

Hello, Pierre cb, 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 (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 17:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Radar-angles.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

test for me

Picture categories

Pierre, you picture was attached to main meteorology category. If you would like to use it - the best way would be to add it to radar meteorology article? Otherwise we would have hundreds of pictures attached to "meteorology" (not only radar but clouds, etc) Pflatau 15:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general, pictures on Wikipedia should not be placed in categories. The category system doesn't handle them well. Pictures on Wikipedia should be added to articles, where appropriate. If the goal is to make the picture itself available to the public (as opposed to using it to illustrate any particular article), the picture should instead be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons [1]. Pictures there can be linked to from Wikipedia articles just as easily as pictures that are actually on Wikipedia, and the Commons' categories are for pictures and other media.--Srleffler 16:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WKR

I've moved the article to CWKR, per your request and based on various websites (eg - [2] [3]). However, Environment Canada seems to list its own ID for radar sites (see this). Should this be of concern? Mindmatrix 17:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceilometer

I saw this popup in my watchlist and actually read the article. Cna you look at this (2nd last paragraph) and make sure I fixed it correctly. They took ours away and we no longer have the manuals for me to check. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know it was you as the anon. CHeers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning detector

Thanks for adding the diagrams, Pierre — they look great. I reorganized the text in that section and bit, and would be grateful if you could read it over to make sure I haven't introduced any errors. David 17:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Freezing rain.png

Hi,

File:Freezing rain.png

Your bot removed this image saying it is without source. However, the description is CLEARLY showing that the image is from Environment Canada. As a canadian goverment departement they allow reproduction (see their site). So could you put back this image!

Pierre cb 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They may permit reproduction, but that is not the same thing as an any-purpose license. See User:Carnildo/Image FAQ section 1.2. --Carnildo 07:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology

I'm a little confused as to what you are asking. Right now we have a lot of articles about instrumentation and stuff like that (mostly listed in subcategories of Category:Meteorology). Eventually all articles relating to meteorology will be listed here, but this will probably take awhile. -Runningonbrains 06:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User page

No problem. They seem to have stopped for now. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radar FAR

Radar has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pierre; we routinely notify the top editors, and you're on that list.[4] Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of tornadocane

I saw you edited the article recently, so I'm leaving a comment here on your talk page. A similar article, landphoon, was deleted from wikipedia despite having seven unique references. Tornadocane has one. Neither term (including landcane) exists in the glossary of meteorology, so it can be delisted as not being encyclopedaic. Also, the meteorology community doesn't even use the tornadocane term, though landphoon and landcane come up from time to time. I hadn't heard of the term before going to Roger Edwards' page on the 1999 event quite recently, where he appeared to coin it. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I merged material from the landphoon article, the tornadocane article would be deleted for the same reason. The only country that mentions them at all is Australia, and even they don't even have a definition for the term. Right now, landphoon/landcane are only mentioned colloquially, with no actual definition other than "you know one when you see one." If there's no established definition in any primary source, including the Bureau of Meteorology (the aussie NWS), then it can't be listed in the wiktionary, let alone wikipedia. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. -RunningOnBrains 21:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 [[Pulse-Doppler radar|Doppler]] [[weather radar|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. -RunningOnBrains 21:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. -RunningOnBrains 22:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category renaming

Hi, I've proposed that most of the subcategories you created under Category:Meteorological institutions and stations be renamed. You can discuss the nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 4 #Meteorological categories. Graham87 10:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

delinking

I refer to your comment at Lightmouse's talk. No, there are compelling reasons to delink a lot of trivial items that have been bright-blue splotched over the years in a loose culture of "link wherever you can". The reasons are set out in countless policy and styleguide talk-page debates, some of them current. In a nutshell, dilution of high-value links, ungainly appearance, greater difficulty in reading. TONY (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radar composantes.png/svg

Hi Pierre. I've made the change to radar components as requested. Enjoy! Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at Wikipedia:Help desk#Side lobes. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


Snowmobile

Hi,

In the article snowmobile you took out the genericized trademark "Ski Doo", the first mass production of this kind, but you left snowmachine and snowsled whitout asking for justifications. This is equivalent to say that Kleenex is not often used for paper tissue but that it can be called locally some obscur name. You have to be logical : either you leave the most common and obvious OR you take all the local names out.

Pierre cb (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pierre, I am currently trying to figure out additions to Jewish Journalists and need to head to a pee wee hockey game momentarily so let me check this out in a few. My biggest gripe would be with what RS say. Do you have a source that says something like what you want in the article ie, Snowmobile are commonly referred to as Ski Doos or whatever the verbage was? I ended up at that article due to the Palin spotlight on them, so I am no expert. Again, I will look into the kleenex comparison and advise. Thank you! --Tom 19:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ps, quick look at Facial tissue has kleenex mentioned OUT of the lead under popluar usage, which I would have no problem if the same was done with snowmobile. I usually like to edit lead sections as was the case here. Anyways, need to run out and watch hockey, My son plays for...the Canadians :) Cheers! --Tom 19:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardier Capital

Hello, Pierre cb. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi. :) Given your interest, I thought I'd let you know that on investigation I found that the timeline also contained extensive material pasted from the various articles to which it sourced. Given the lack of a clean version, what I've done is expand the section on Bombardier Capital at Bombardier and create a redirect to that. Not all the material has been included (I didn't see the need to track the number of times the company laid off employees), but I hope that I've preserved the core of information. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skimobile

See snowmobile talk page for further references. By the way, the 1944 date in the Merriam Webster entry simply indicates their first known usage of the word at all, not "when the definition is from." If you check MW's entry for "snowmobile," you'll see they indicate the word was coined in 1923, also previous to the modern machine. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowmobile

Hi,

I remember the discussion about Ski Doo we had and I want to assure you that it is not me who removed it. I see that you have added your point of view about the local names of snowmobile about the heated exchange with this Srobak guy. I might have been a bit fast in removing the "sled" but it was put by IP without refrenced and it serves no purpose to add at infinitum details like that. This Srobak threatens me right off the bat and then deny it. Do you know where I can exposed my situation ? Pierre cb (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pierre cb, no problem about the Ski Doo, I do believe that things were amlicable back then, but to be honest, I try not to let my past interactions sway my present opinion or actions either way. I don't know the full history here, but I did see that Srobak was edit warring on your talk page which is not proper or helpful. He then mention that I had been warned about my edits on talk pages, which wasn't fully accurate, becasue that had more to do with main space talk pages and not user talk pages, but that is neither here nor there.(just reverted your talk page again while I post this and "invited" the user to visit my page per his "threat") To answer your question, there are multiple places/boards/actions to bring up these type of disputes. First, always try to use the article talk page, which seems to be the case. 2nd, try to seek out others(uninvolved/neutral) opinions by request on their talk page or you can visit the request for comment board. If you feel that you need to have an admin step in over a user's actions, ie, threats, edit warring, salking, harrasment, distruption, the WP:ANI board is watched like a hawk. The only problem, is that you are usually told that the matter has not risen to the level of intervention and are told to try another dispute resolution method. Anyways, hope this helps and good luck. I usally hate having to go down these roads because they are a pain in the butt and usually don't do much unless the user is really out of control, and if that is the case, others usually beat me to the jump. Anyways, cheers! :) --Tom (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I posted a comment on the request for comment board to have someone cool Srobak down. I think I will let the matter die gradually unless he continues to threaten my user page. Pierre cb (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea and no problem. I will check that page out as well. I also posted to his talk page per the edit warring on your talk page. I hate getting into school yard spit balling, but what can I say, I am a youngest child :) --Tom (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tornado vandalism

A sad situation indeed. I've always been opposed to permanent protection of any kind (including Flagged Revisions) but I am leaning towards re-semi-protecting the article. Interesting note: last year, it was the 624th-most-viewed article on Wikipedia, which may explain the high level of IP vandalism. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 18:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Storm

I didn't invent Southern Ontario's boundaries, it was there long before we were born. The ice storm affected a LOT more than Eastern Ontario. It was just more severe in E.Ontario. Please refrain from correcting the geography of a province which you obviously aren't educated on. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilthyBear (talk • contribs) 02:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Priestley

Awadewit has some serious family concerns limiting her time here, so I will reply. There is no (zero) requirement that an article have an infobox and the Joseph Priestley article passed WP:FAC without one. The result of the RfC to right align the lead image was no clear consensus. In that case there is no mandate to change the existing left alignment. Please the the most recent talk page archive for further discussions of this, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Severe weather chart in French severe weather article

Is there an English version of this graphic? I see this as the most important piece of the French article to add to the English one, mainly due to my lack of understanding of French. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the graphic. The severe weather article can be as large or restrictive as one wants to make it. Honestly, the expansion of severe weather to non-thunderstorm related types will ultimately need references in the English article to state that drought/cold/heat are types of severe weather. The English article may end up becoming more restrictive once it goes through GAN or FAC. If it doesn't, I could see someone creating an article such as Severe weather forecasting, which would better mirror the scope and content of the French article. Its scope would not merely be a shorter version of the English severe weather article, so it could be worth creating. Thegreatdr (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re: Question

Hi Pierre,

I'm rescuing old edits from the Nostalgia Wikipedia, a copy of the Wikipedia database from 20 December 2001. I needed to move the radar page because the import tool only allows me to import either all the edits or just the latest edit to a page. Unfortunately, the latest edit to the Radar page on the Nostalgia Wikipedia was made by a person whose username contained an underline, and that edit already existed in the English Wikipedia history. Such edits are duplicated when they are imported and become impossible to separate; see principle #3 of User:Graham87/Import and the section about overlapping edits. Graham87 03:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one copy under the name "Larry_Sanger" and the other under the name "Larry Sanger". Graham87 04:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{Tb|e.w.bullock}}

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template

Pierre CB, Sorry for the presumption. To explain, it tends to get people to leave you (and your page) alone. I think it makes it look more like you are at home in Wikipedia-land, which you are. Feel free to remove it. It was a suggestion, more than anything else. I've noted you've done a lot of good work on weather-related matters. Thanks, because it will certainly enchance the encyclopedia. Happy editing and bon chance!. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: Helene

Yea, I'm sorry. I reverted at first because I thought I had the proper term, but then after checking your link, I realize I was in error. Thanks for fixing it! :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty of that same association. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 Central and Eastern Canada ice storm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sleet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

SafeDrive entry on the Radar page

Hello Pierre cb:

You reverted my good faith addition of SafeDrive to the Radar page as "spam". I can see why you did that, but please know I have no connection to or investment in that company or product. Rather, my goal was to demonstrate a modern-day application of the use of radar. Is there a more appropriate place to discuss that topic and provide examples?

Cheers, Froid (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Wall cloud

Dear colleague, I do not understand why these photographs could not be used. Pictured is a wall cloud, which is confirmed by the official organization for research thunderstorms. What is your education for verifying whether wall when it comes to cloud or not? Or perhaps you have racist tendencies to the Europeans that want to restrict? Best Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meteoastroplanes (talk • contribs) 12:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

License

Dear sir,

On behalf of the Department of Geoinformatics, Palacký university in Olomouc (http://geoinformatics.upol.cz/eindex.php) I would like to contact you about the copyright of your possession. Our department will be publishing Czech translation of Wiley’s publication „GIS & Science“ and would like to use pictures owned by you and licenced for the original English publication. Whereas it will be published only in 300 copies and distributed among students of our department for free, we would like to ask you for your approval of this use. To satisfy the Czech law we need a pdf document with official statement with your signature included or official confirmation of email including a description of the image. Because the publication is going to be ready soon (we want it to be published at the end of June), we need your response as soon as possible. The figure we’re talking about is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lewis_Fry_Richardson.png

Please answer on mail: antonin.benc01@upol.cz Thanks.

Kind regards, Antonin Benc Department of Geoinformatics Faculty of Science | Palacky University in Olomouc 17. listopadu 50 | Olomouc, 771 46 | Czech Republic www.geoinformatics.upol.cz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.19.88.10 (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A gotcha. Yea, there just wasn't enough info there for an article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actinograph

Unfortunately not. And searching only gave the other one on Commons. Sorry. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 02:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AIV comment

Hello, Regarding your comment at AIV, this editor was not warned at all regarding their vandalism. Please do not report editors to AIV if they have not been sufficiently warned. Thanks, Nakon 03:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox: Millimeter cloud radar draft

Hi, thanks for your interest in the article we (a group of 4 students) are preparing about millimeter cloud radar. I'll let you know when we make it public (it'll be in the next few weeks).

Pilargumaclaramunt (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: we finally updated the article Millimeter cloud radar we had in my Sandbox. Pilargumaclaramunt (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pilargumaclaramunt: Thanks. Pierre cb (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer Candidate

Hello Pierre, You did a nice job transferring those two photos of mine to Commons. Here is one that gets an enormous amount of hits, and should probably be transferred as well, if you're in the mood: File:Anatomy of a Sunset-2.jpg Thanks, Pocketthis (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pocketthis: Done. You can easily make transfers like that with https://tools.wmflabs.org/commonshelper/?interface=en&image=Copy_to_Wikimedia_Commons&lang=en Pierre cb (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the transfer and the advice my friend. However, I have had little luck with commons, and have promised myself never to upload there again. But, since you volunteered the last time, I thought if any photo belongs on commons, this one does, and who better to transfer it than my friend Pierre. Thanks - Pocketthis (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion and subcategories relisted

Hello. You participated in either the CFD discussion to delete the above category and its subcategories or the DRV discussion regarding those categories (or both). The result of the DRV was to relist the categories for discussion. This is a notification that they have now been relisted for discussion here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Xx236: and @Sam Sailor: 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)[reply]
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.[reply]
@Xx236: and @Sam Sailor: OK. Pierre cb (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do we fix the spelling on an upload?

I spelled Desert like Dessert in this photo: File:Dessert Lava.jpg

@Pocketthis: You just have to use the "Rename" at the top. This will ask for the proper name you want to use and the reason for the change. Then an administrator will do the renaming. Pierre cb (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radar>>Talk>>Clarification

Thanks for your answer, If you can answer my other question there, I will be really happy.At Last ... (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Again thank u so much, I think reading these scientific article are the best way to promote someone's English ability, and some technical term are confusing me(Beginner in English), and some help is helpful! or at least, some care and explanation must be considered when peoples are writing technical content in Wikipedia, I think Wikipedia is not for English language person and is world wide to share information across all the word. And using specified language are not for educated person, but that's really good for someone are young and not yet leaned the word-wide language which interconnect all human. Again thanks for your answer.[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pierre_cb&oldid=750213406"