User talk:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking Insert-signature.png if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Nolelover 12:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Cloud[edit]

If you made additions to articles within wikipedia, please add the appropriate inline references per the Manual of Style. A mention in the edit summary is not enough. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Every paragraph should have at least one source within it. When you split paragraphs, you need to use refname=""/ format if the source of both paragraphs is the same. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Your referencing is coming along nicely. When it gets well-enough referenced, check over the quality of the text. If it looks good to you, go for a GAN run. It's a positive learning experience. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
If you think the article has enough information and referencing, we can send it through the GAN process. But only if you're ready. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
As it turns out, it's not quite ready. I need you to address the referencing concerns I placed on the article's talk page. I think I've fixed the dead reference, and reference formatting, issues elsewhere within the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Cloud, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Equilibrium (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) 10:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Trans-Canada Highway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deficit (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) 10:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited North American English, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dyke (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) 11:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Accessory cloud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arcus (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) 10:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Cloud, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hemisphere and Polar cell (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) 11:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
In honor of recently making your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia, and for the amazing work you did to improve Cloud (among your other contributions!), please accept this barnstar.

Thanks for helping make the world's greatest encyclopedia even better! :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Next Star, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christopher Ward (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) 12:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Photo Caption request ignored[edit]

Hello Chris, Since you seem to be the main contributor to the Cloud article (nice work), I thought you'd be the perfect editor to ask why a simple request in the cloud talk page asking what type of clouds are in a photo I attached has been ignored. Are they so difficult to categorize? P.S. I don't plan on putting this photo into the cloud article..... just in case that's why my question has been ignored. It's a photo of my own that I would like to caption for my user page, and perhaps a gallery in another article in the future. Funny thing is, Two international Wiki sites have picked up the photo as the main photo to illustrate their "Sky" articles. I have translated their pages to see if they mention what types of clouds they are, but there is no mention of it. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi; sorry for the slow reply. Thanks for your favourable comments :) I haven't been checking the discussion page as often as I should as there hasn't been much activity there lately. The smaller clouds are cumulus humilis and the larger clouds are cumulus mediocris. I don't think any of the clouds in the photo are large enough to be cumulus congestus. I hope that helps. User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 12:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks Chris, I am now a more educated cloud gazer. All the best......Pocketthis (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vancouver Island, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Urban and Interchange (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) 12:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Earth's atmosphere.svg[edit]

Earth's atmosphere Layers of the atmosphere drawn to scale, objects within the layers are not to scale.
Earth's atmosphere Layers of the atmosphere drawn to scale, objects within the layers are not to scale.

Yes, the cloud pictured is a noctiluscent cloud, and it's supposed to be in the mesosphere (note how it gets cut off at the edge of the mesosphere layer), though I understand if it looks like it's in the stratosphere. I moved the cloud a bit so more of it gets cut off. As for the auroræ, I think they're clearly in the thermosphere—can you explain why they look like they're in the mesosphere?—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I now partly agree with you about the placement of the aurora in the diagram. I apparently mistook the Karman line for the mesopause. Proper identification of the mesopause puts the aurora partly in the mesosphere and partly in the lower thermosphere. This appears consistent with the altitude range givien in the Wikipedia article about auroras/aurorae, but now has me believing this article about the atmosphere shouldn't be describing the mesopause as being practically one and the same as the turbopause. I plan to amend the text to clarify these two boundaries are quite distinct and are separated by a significant vertical distance. Still, the diagram appears to extend the aurora down into the stratosphere, and with that I disagree. In addition, I stand by my belief that the location of the noctilucent cloud in the diagram is entirely erroneous. As far as I can see, this polar mesospheric cloud has been placed fully below the stratopause and therefore dead centre in the stratosphere. Perhaps the diagram's creator recalls (and was misled by) the time decades ago before the mesosphere was recognized or defined as a layer, and noctilucent clouds were, by the definition of the time, an upper stratospheric water-based aerosol. So the question for me is whether the error is serious enough to warrent exclusion of the diagram from the Wikipedia article. I believe all diagrams incorporated into Wikipedia articles should be of the highest possible quality for both graphics and overall accuracy. If this diagram is to be included, then the error should be prominantly flagged by a caption immediatly adjacent to the diagam.

It's a three-dimensional diagram—do you see the triangle that marks the mesopause? If you use that as the plane of reference, then the aurora is clearly above the mesopause. The same applies for the noctiluscent cloud, though I get that it's much more ambiguous. Would it help if I moved the cloud farther to the upper left?—Kelvinsong (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Aha, I get it now; you're the one who created the chart in the first place! I was wondering what you meant by moving the cloud around. Your chart is a very clever piece of work, and I could see the chart was supposed to be 3-dimensional, but I didn't get that is was a view of the layers as seen from outer space looking down at a fairly sharp angle. The triangular shape of the "column" threw me as well. Now that I understand how to look at it, I can see the noctilucent cloud is in the right layer, but I agree moving the cloud as far to the upper left as possible will help. It would help the perspective even more if you can depict a nacreous cloud directly below it in the upper left of the stratosphere, and then place the tropospheric clouds directly below that in the upper left of the troposphere. I think it would be similarly helpful to place the aurora in the upper left of the thermoshere so all the natural atmospheric phenomena are in a vertical stack with each one directly above the other. Then any man-made craft could be shown in the upper right part of each of their respective layers; a subsonic airplane in the troposphere, a weather balloon and/or supersonic airplane in the stratosphere, an old X-15 or new Virgin Galactic aircraft/spacecraft in the mesosphere, and the international space station in the thermosphere. This would leave the forward apex of the triangular column largely empty, but it's difficult to represent anything there because of the parallax problem. Maybe changing the perspective to a less steep angle from above would also help, and perhaps replacing the sharp front apex of the column with something shallower and more semi-circular. I hope that helps; I appreciate your interest in my ideas.

The viewing angle of the triangular prism is very difficult to change (it involves using 3D software to render out each polygon in the prism stack into a separate SVG file; something like 20 polygons, and merging them) I've moved the noctiluscent cloud, cirrus clouds and the weather balloon, added the nacreous cloud. Better?—Kelvinsong (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes; the height ranges for the clouds show up very well now. I gather the meteors and aurorae which you've kept further foreward more or less vertically straddle the Karman line. That part could still be a little tricky for some viewers to analyse. However it helps that the Karman line is depicted on all three "sides" of the column with a very clear white line that shows up much better than the lower placed 3 dimentional boundaries. If my interpretation of the positioning of the meteors and aurorae are correct, I'd say the diagram has been clarified sufficiently to be a valuable and unique feature for the article. Thanks again for your interest in my ideas :)

I've added the image back to the article.—Kelvinsong (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Great to see it back in the article :) I can see I judged it too hastily at first, not knowing how to interpret it properly. However, with the clarifications you've made to the chart, and with the help you've given me to understand the layout, I can say it's the best and most comprehensive diagram I've seen showing the layers of the atmosphere and the various clouds and other phenomena that occur at various altitudes. Good work! User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 23:40, 17 June 2013 UTC

Thank you!—Kelvinsong (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pan-American Highway, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Washington State, Whistler and Cache Creek (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) 16:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neerja Bhanot Award, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hijack (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) 08:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

User page change[edit]

I just thought I should say, I corrected what appeared to be a syntax error on your user page. Dustin (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing sources[edit]

Some of your edits (Cloud, List of cloud types) have left reference fragments in articles. I think the original ref you want is at Cumulus cloud but it is part of the bibliography. (Ludlum in the same articles might be fragmented also). 71.234.215.133 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cloud may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • int/pmb_ged/wmo_407_en-v1.pdf |accessdate=2014-08-26}}</ref><ref name="Cumulus Humilis-Skynews">{{cite web |author=Cumulus-skynews |title=Clouds: Their curious natures |year=2013 |url=http://

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Pilsbury Doughboy[edit]

Chris, do you think we can incorporate the Pilsbury Doughboy into our Cloud article?..........:) Just some levity to balance the insanity. Pocketthis (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

      • Haha it would be great to be able to include this! I checked out 'doughboy' in Latin using google translate. The actual cloud appears to be stratocumulus formed by the spreading of cumulus. I think we could call it "stratocumulus puerus coxeruntque-farinus cumulogenitus", rendered in the customary sequence of genus Sc, species puerus (boy), variety coxeruntque-farinus (dough), mother-cloud cumulogenitus. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL...Too bad it is an encyclopedia we edit, and not the Conan O'brian show. When I saw this in the sky, I thought "Ghost Busters 3" was in the making. I couldn't get to my camera fast enough. Been fun, all the best. Pocketthis (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 30 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cloud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stratus. 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) 09:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Cloud diagram[edit]

Genus classification by altitude of occurrence. Towering vertical cumulus not shown. Far right: Actual nimbostratus is the dark grey layer extending downward to near surface from a lighter-shaded partially stratified layer of altocumulus.
Genus classification by altitude of occurrence. Towering vertical cumulus not shown. Far right: Actual nimbostratus is the dark grey layer extending downward to near surface from a lighter-shaded partially stratified layer of altocumulus.

I edited the cloud diagram on cloud to make it include both the cloud names and the two-letter abbreviations so no need to juggle it with the Workenstock picture anymore! && I like moved the “nimbostratus” into the gray part. I still think there ought to be an actual photograph of a cloud in the lead shouldn’t there be?

Illustration of a warm front. The warm air behind the front is slowly overtaking the cold air ahead of the front, which is moving more slowly in the same direction. The warmer air, due to lower density, climbs over the colder air as it moves. As a result of its increased altitude, it cools off and its moisture condenses, forming clouds and possibly precipitation.
Illustration of a warm front. The warm air behind the front is slowly overtaking the cold air ahead of the front, which is moving more slowly in the same direction. The warmer air, due to lower density, climbs over the colder air as it moves. As a result of its increased altitude, it cools off and its moisture condenses, forming clouds and possibly precipitation.

BTW I’ve just drawn a warm front illustration if you’d like to take a look at it—Kelvinsong talk 03:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I see we've met before on my user page, back in 2013 when we were discussing that clever bit of graphics you did for the article about the Earth's atmosphere. Once again, I appreciate your co-operation with the clarification you've made to the nimbostratus label on the classification diagram you've added to the cloud article. Unfortunately, the diagram doesn't appear to be your creation, or I could have offered a suggestion to give the Ns a more homogeneous look from top to bottom. In its present form, the Ns is capped by what appears to be a vertically interfacing but still separate layer of Ac stratiformis (as opposed to the Ac floccus depicted on the left side of the diagram). This combination of clouds is possible, but not typical, and I don't think it's the intent of the diagram to show more than one example of each genus-type. I'll try and suggest to it's orginal creator the lumpy white upper and smooth grey lower parts be merged and smoothed into a single thick layer with a smoother top. I think that would be a significant improvment to render unnecessary the Wolkenstockwerk chart and the "clarification" I put into the caption about the Ns. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy regarding the use of an illustration in the lead section of an article, but I'll try and find out about it. If necessary or desirable, I can always swap places for the diagram and the photo that was previously in that location. BTW, I think your new diagram of a warm front is a great improvement over the original that was in the warm front article, as is the chart of the atmosphere you did a couple of years ago. Keep up the good work! User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 10:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I got rid of the “ac floccus” on top of the nimbostratus, && thanks sm!!—Kelvinsong talk 23:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help improving the diagram! I've now simplified the caption by removing expanitory text that's no longer needed. User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 10:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cloud may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{See also|Atmospheric convection))

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of transcontinental countries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Convention (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) 09:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:History of Western art music[edit]

Hello: Do you think including a link to Postmodern music in label23 would be appropriate here – and, if so, as "post modern", "post-modern" or "postmodern" – ? Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have created the link you suggested and adopted 'postmodern' as the correct spelling now widely used. including by the article 'postmodern music'. I've also revamped other text and provided references where needed. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 14:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A Photo I don't think will ever make it to the Cloud article[edit]

Nature can be a nasty critter! Knew you'd love this......LOL. Pocketthis (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Odd shaped Cloud.jpg
A cloud like object, takes a Wiz on a High Desert Community

Amazing pic! I'd certainly like to put it in the cloud article. It could simply be labled an unusaual stratocumulus/cirrocumulus combination and let the reader draw their own conclusions. I'm not going to rush into it though. Maybe there is somewhere better to put it! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 13:32, 1 March 1 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think that would go over too well in the grammar school classroom....with the teacher that is. Perhaps this got separated from the Pillsbury Doughboy cloud during a strong Orographic lift. Later pal...Pocketthis (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's the "Flying Fickle Finger of Fate" seen on TV 45 yeares ago  ;-) ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 13:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.172.12 (talk)

  • I did a photoshop version, where I connected this "thing" to the Doughboy's crotch. It will never be uploaded here, but my friends sure seem to like it. Now they all understand how a cloud rains....:-)→ Pocketthis (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Could we start a new Wikipedia article 'Cloudporn'? ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 14:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes....then of course it would become a 'Human Deviation', and millions around the world, would be lying outside on their backs playing with themselves.:-)→ Pocketthis (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Formatting of vote at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles[edit]

If there is going to be a vote at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles can you format it so there is a very concise statement of what we're voting on before each vote. Something like "Add *****" or "Remove ****" which is the way we normally vote on changes. RJFJR (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I've reformatted and simplified my nominations along the lines you've suggested. Please let me know if any other modifications are needed. If not, let the voting begin! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Whirlpool type Clouds[edit]

Whirlpool clouds at twilight

Hey Chris, caught these last night, and I thought you might like them. I was going to put them up in the "unstable clouds section", but I wouldn't know how to caption them anyway. So, if you like them and want to put it up in our favorite article.....please do. They seem to be pretty unique to anything in the article as of yet, but if you don't like them, I trust your judgement.-thanksPocketthis (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the pics! I don't think I've seen anything like this before either, and I don't think there's any official name or classification for them. I'd like to include at least one of them in the article, but I'll have to give some thought about to where to put it/them; maybe under "Pattern-based varieties". ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
    • My guess is some kind of "wanna-be" funnel cloud from orographic lift. However, when I say "guess", I can't emphasize it enough..lolPocketthis (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Chris, I did the research. They are formed from a phenomenon known as a Karman vortex. When wind driven clouds are forced through a mountain range, or ocean wind driven clouds encounter a high elevation island, they can begin to circle the mountain or high land mass, and form this "Karman Vortex". That is exactly what is happening in that photo. The clouds are being blown from the ocean, across the flat plain, right into the mountain range you see them spinning above. I think that you'll agree that this phenomenon is worth a mention in our favorite article. Thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

  • This is definitely worth a mention, and I'll come up with something to put in the article as soon as I can. There's also a Wikipedia article about it, so I'll create a link to that as well. It turns out the vortex was discovered or defined by the same Karman who came up with the Karman line in the upper atmosphere that commonly defines the beginning of outer space. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Very good. I'm glad it will work out. I liked the photo mainly because I never saw this event before, and from what I've read about it in my research, it's something often caught on Satellite images, but rarely seen from the ground, especially in such a sparingly clouded sky. I am very lucky as a photographer to live in an area where the sky is so big, beautiful, and ever changing. I'm sure, as always, you'll write a great summery of the event. Thanks Chris.-Pocketthis (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I finally got around to putting your photo of the vortex street into the cloud article. The text is a bit of a rush job in which I retained some of your own comments. If I can improve it over time I will, but I don't usually do much on Wikipedia at this time of year because of numerous activities outside the house and elsewhere. Thanks again for your contribution! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Sweet job Chris. The photo looks great in that spot, and the text is spot on. Thanks for doing what you do. Pocketthis (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Unique clouds[edit]

Paintbrush Silhouette.jpg

Hey Chris, please click on this one, and notice the shearing from the wind on the clouds. It looks like I put it in Photoshop and smudged them. How rare is this? I've never seen it before, at least not to this degree. Thanks - Pocketthis (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

      • If that's definitly wind shearing and not virga, then it's definitely very unusual. Interestingly enough, I have a photo of a sky like this one I took a couple of months ago except it was sunrise and the cloud was being sheared in 2 directions at once creating a herringbone effect. This effect is sometimes seen with high clouds (cirrus vertebratus), but what I saw was a much lower cloud, maybe Sc or Ac. Also the shearing was in a downward vertical direction on 1 side and horizontal on the other side. I have a few photos of it in my computer but I don't know how to transfer it to Wikipedia. Also, I want to request a peer review for the Cloud article, but it says to create a new talk page, but I just bet booted back to the regular talk page. Do you know how to do a peer review request? ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 01:30, 03 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see your photos. Easy to upload. Just look to your left, third from bottom in tools is upload file. Make sure it's in JPG format, and use the simple 3 step upload wizard that will come up when you click on "Upload File". I don't know what "virga" is, so I can't say one way or the other. I never even noticed it was happening when I took the shot. I noticed it when I downloaded it from the camera. I liked the color and texture of the puffy clouds, and then got a bonus. As far as the peer review, you are asking the wrong guy. I'm lucky I can leave messages..lol. Ask an admin. That's what they're here for. Good luck. - Pocketthis (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! It's got really busy at home right now, so it'll take me a few days to find time to do the pics. I've never uploaded photos to these types of sites before, and I'm quite blind to all these tool-boxes and task wizards that are planted around the fringes of my screen. Fortunately I have a couple of "techie" friends visting for a while, so they can help me through that kind of "JPG" stuff. Maybe they can also help me decipher Wikipedia's complex instructions for getting a peer review. They're not Wikipedians per se, but they're far more computer literate than I am. Wikipedia admin is about as useful as tits on a donkey. I can ask them once for help on something, but after that, they just ignore me. Virga is precipitation that falls from a cloud but evaporates before reaching the ground. It's in the cloud article under 'supplementary features'. I'll try and get back to you in a few days. ***ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 01:30, 05 September 21:20 (UTC)

  • Chris, the upload wizard here is a breeze. The 1st question is: Is this your work? You click the yes box, then it asks you to find your photo. It opens a browser box for you to show them what folder your photo is in. Then they ask you to describe it in a few sentences, and then click on the 4.0 license rights when prompted.....and you are done. The file, description, and photo location is there for you to copy, so you can post it where you want to. Go to edit here, and look at the copy I pasted to get my photos to show up. That info is from the upload. P.S. The photo I posted isn't virga. It's wind shear. Good luck. Pocketthis (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

More weird clouds[edit]

Early twilight eastern sky
Dusk eastern sky

Hey Chris, more cloud formations I've never seen before. That is pretty rare because I am no Spring Chicken. The first one was eastern sky at sundown, and the second was during the latter part of Twilight. I think they are downdraft wind shear clouds. The second one I believe would make a great article opener. We have no photo there now, and this is a knock-out of an event. However, perhaps it's too strange for an opener...lol. I thought I was in northern Alaska when I was viewing this. It is mimicking the Aurora Borealis. What do you think? Thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

      • Amazing pics for sure, especially the 2nd one! The bright yellow streaks appear to be wind shear as you say, but I can't make any sense of the bright yellow coloration, especially if it was later twilight. The higher whitish-blue clouds could be noctilucent if it was deep twilight. These are usually polar clouds, but they've occasionally been seen as far south as Utah with some unverified claims even further south. This pic could be a great addition to the cloud article, maybe in the section on coloration, as long as Admin can be convinced it wasn't photoshopped!
      • Unfortunately, I've just been too busy until now to go digging around my computer in search of a task wizard. Our computers must be set up very differently, because I can't even find, much less figure out how to use this beast! I have another techie friend visiting, so maybe the 2 of us can get together and figure this out very soon! **ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • FYI: Every photo goes through Photoshop for cropping and sizing. I don't mess with what you see in my photos. I may add some contrast from time to time if a photo is a bit washed out, or I may lighten or darken a photo if needed. That's where the story ends. There's no issue with convincing an admin. Just click on the photo and then click on "more details", that will take you to the photo's commons page. Then go down to "Metadata". Under that heading, you can click on "extended details". It tells the complete story of the camera settings, as well as if it was a "directly photographed image", or if it was messed with. That will settle that. Every single thing you always wanted to know about any of my photographs but were afraid to ask, is right there for anyone to read. It keeps the bullshit out of the profession. Pocketthis (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I hope I didn't leave you with the impression I personally had any doubts about the authenticity of your pics. My comment was mean to be a bit of a swipe at some senior editors and admin types with whom I've had some less than friendly encounters when they've tried to block or interfere with my work. That said, you've brought to my attention the protections you have from anyone who might question your photo contributions. I think you are seeing more and more that I know very little about uploading photos onto any website, and I haven't yet got around to aquiring the skills and knowledge for doing so. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Chris, here is the URL for uploading your photo. It's pretty self explanatory: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard&?withJS=MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js However, eventually you will have to join commons if you continue to upload photos. You can get away with a few demonstration photos on here, but anything that ends up in an article will be moved over to commons by someone. If you continue to upload here for articles, you will be kindly asked to start uploading to commons.

As far as me thinking you were accusing me of anything, absolutely not, but after reading my reply, I can see where you might get that vibe. I just wanted you to know there is no way to mess with a digital photo and get away with it. If you are shooting on film stock, that's another story. The digital photos carry a "finger print" of every click that was made on the photo.

Disambiguation link notification for October 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Golden Horseshoe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Grand River
Southwestern Ontario (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Grand River

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great Lakes Megalopolis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I-76 (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) 12:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Couple of things Chris[edit]

First, I would never revert one of your posts. That is reserved for vandals, and new editors. I would have just made the edit. Also, the words: étage and étages, may be familiar to a weatherman like you, but I promise you that there isn't a living soul in the US or England that knows WTF it means. This is an encyclopedia used mainly by school kids. I have a Bachelor's degree, and I am proud of my vocabulary, and I had no clue, other than the French translation. There is one way you can keep the word that makes any sense. Since this is a learning institution, you can write a small stub on the word, then you can bracket the word when used in the article to make it blue, and send the reader to the stub to learn the meaning. Thanks-Pocketthis (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

    • Sorry if you took the revert as a put-down. I've been reverted a few times on various articles I've worked on, and thought of the procedure as nothing more or less than a convenient way to put an edit back to the way it was. Sometimes the reverts of my edits have been warrented and sometimes not. In the latter case, I've simply counter-reverted with added content to back my changes.
    • Maybe I have inflated aspirations for the articles I work on. I thought part of the purpose of Wikipedia was to introduce new words and terminologies to lay readers. The best articles I've read by other editors have been the ones that stretch my mind a little and offer me information I can't get from the World Book Encyclopedia or a standard high school textbook. If some words I've used in the cloud article are too difficult for lay readers to learn, I would have to blame the public education system which has considerably dumbed-down its weather courses since I was in school. I thought the meaning of 'étage' would be made clear enough by the context in which I've been using it.
    • That said, I'll give consideration to replacing or supplementing " étage" with "altitude range" or some other simpler term if I get an editorial consensus on the article's talk page to do so. I've also been intending for a long time to learn how to create a new article from scratch (as opposed to merely editing existing articles), which I would have to do to try out your suggestion. But I have create the time and focus necessary to undertake that kind of initiative (you may have noticed I still haven't gotten around to learning how to post photos on Wikipedia). As for "floor", sorry, I couldn't let it remain. That term is not used by any authority I know of to describe the altitude range of a cloud. My apologies if I didn't make the change in a more diplomatic way.
    • p.s. In paragraph 2 of the intro, my version reads "altitude ranges or étages" at the point where cloud height is mentioned for the first time. I made that change quite some time ago to explain the latter term near the top of the article, but maybe it would be helpful to do the same elsewhere in the piece. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time for such a lengthily reply. Since étage is not an English word, I find it interesting that you would think it would be learned in public schools here. I promise you it isn't, unless your major was meteorology (I'm guessing). Writing a stub is a snap, and would take much less time than your reply to me here...lol. The articles I read here (and I try to read a new one each day) that are the most educational for me, are those that have the most bracketed words. I always follow the blue words to their stub or article, and lean new words. I couldn't do that with étage, because it has no stub or article. Here is the simplest way to make a stub: Go to the search engine and type in étage. A blue box will drop down saying: "Containing étage". Click on that, and you will then see all the places it is used, as well as the option to start an article for it. If you click on the start an article, the directions walk you through it in 2 minutes. You can make it one paragraph long. Then it will be referred to as a stub. This is actually like a dictionary article for the word. When you hit save at the bottom of the page as you do with every post you make......you're done. Now it will be blue when bracketed. I just took more time here explaining it to you, than it would take you to make it. lol. Thanks buddy-Pocketthis (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

    • Thanks for your tip about how to create a stub article. Just one thing; which search engine are you referring to? I don't think it's Google because that alone doesn't take me to the next steps you outlined. So maybe Wikipedia has it's own search engine I don't yet know about.
    • Just a few more comments about my use of 'étage'. Yes, it's a French word, but so is 'faux pas', another of several French words and phrases that seem to have made their way into the 'English' language. I first introduced the term to the 2 main Wikipedia cloud articles, 'Cloud' and 'List of cloud types', nearly 2 years ago. I had been switching the article from International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) terminolgy and classification to World Meteorological Organization (WMO) terms of reference because I believe the latter is more scientific. I think ICAO classification is out of date except maybe for aviation use, and contains some classifications I don't think work well outside that community of interest (I can go into more detail about that if you want me too). Also, another Wikipedia editor who goes by the user name 'The reaper eternal' previously introduced the French/WMO term to the article 'Cirrus cloud' which he/she was revamping and quickly earned it an FA rating. So you could say was trying to emulate that effort. I'm wondering if you only recently noticed 'étage' in the cloud article we've been working on, since I don't think you've openly questioned it until now.
    • It's possible we may have different ideas about what age groups or educational backgrounds the cloud article should be aimed at. There is a Wikipedia cloud article in 'Simple English' that I think is best for elementary school students. The only thing is you have to click onto the language column to the left of the regular article, something younger students might not think to do. It took me a long time before I noticed it was even there. As I understand it, Wikipedia intends its regular English-language science articles to be aimed mostly at high school and freshman/sophomore college students. I think those who are intelligent and seriously interested in meterology can handle the official WMO terms if they are sufficiently explained on Wikipedia. I gather is where you think my efforts have fallen a bit short until now. Those who are not so interested, and are just trying to earn a credit and then move on, will likely settle for whatever is in their basic school textbook and not bother with Wikipedia. And wouldn't you know it, most North American school textbooks use the simpler but less scientific classification that the WMO discarded over half a century ago, but which is still used by ICAO.
    • So I've just completed another hefty tome for you! I guess you now have a pretty good idea as to where I'm coming from on this issue. And yes, I'll have a go at creating that stub article as soon as I know which search engine to use and how to access it. Many thanks my friend! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, of course you silly boy, I am talking about the search engine at the top of our page here, and on every en.wikipedia page. OK here, I'll make it easier for you. I just typed in enatge to our search engine, and here is the page that comes up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=entage&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 Just click on that link, and it will take you to the page to begin an article. By the way, your post I'm seeing here is an article on its own...lol. I'll have to come back to read it, as I am reading War and Peace right now...:-)Pocketthis (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

  • So..I just completed reading your full reply to me. Chris, my concerns are much simpler than you would imagine. When I see a word that I don't know, I look it up. I looked up entage, and it was not in the dictionary, so I copied and pasted it with the french apostrophe within it, (étage) and went to google translate. It said: "floor". Chris, you are a great asset to the cloud article. You have the same passion with the text as I do with the art. Also, I know you live in Canada. I also know that Canadians are generally much more used to and tolerant of french words mixed in to English spoken conversations. My advice, take it or leave it, is if you must use a french word or any foreign word in the article, just explain it. Even if you just put it in parenthesis, and explain it briefly that way. For instance: you use the word étage in a sentence ('étage' means blah blah blah). Other than that, what ever makes you happy. Perhaps you will enjoy making the article stubs as you go along, and you will help educate us dumb Americans to some rhetorical and literal international knowledge.-thanks Chris-Pocketthis (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah, I finally found the search engine. I've always had a problem finding things that are hiding in the open! But thanks for the link anyway; I'm sure that will make it even easier for this old luddite. I'm kind of in multi-tasking mode right now (also something I'm not much good at!), so it might take me a couple of days to focus and come up with exactly what to say in the stub article. But do it I will! Cheers, ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

love these clouds[edit]

Chris, besides the obvious beauty of the sky here, is there anything going on of any meteorological interest? You can click on it to enlarge it. I call it: 3D-Clouds - Thanks, Jessie - Pocketthis (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

3D-Clouds.jpg
    • Hi Jesse; The low thick clouds look like multiple layers of lenticular stratocumulus heaped in a way that makes them look like towering cumulus congestus. If they were racing across the sky, then there was plenty of horizontal wind shear causing the lenticular formations. There may have also been convective wind currents giving the clouds more vertical development than usual. The higher layer of altocumulus shows no unusual features that I can see. Hope that helps :) ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The main reason I stay in this desert is the sky. Never in my life have I seen such beauty, and ever changing glorious beauty at that. It's never the same twice, unless it's one of those days when there just isn't a cloud in the sky. When we look west in these shots taken at my ranch, we are looking across the western edge of the Mojave toward the Inland Empire just over the other side of the ridge that the sun sets on, and then beyond that is Los Angeles. The ocean being the key ingredient in this unique setting, is what gives me the startling sunsets and twilights I see here so often. Also, there is always orographic lift occurring when there is any cloud activity because of the San Bernardino mountains, and unique geography as seen from my perspective. Love it - thanks-Jessie - Pocketthis (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

New article[edit]

Hi Jessie; here's the text to the new article I attempted to create.

Étage (meteorology)[edit]

In meteorology, an étage is any of three main altitude levels in the troposphere where certain cloud types usually form. The term is derived from the French word which means floor or storey, as in the floor of a multi-storey building. With the exception of the low étage, the altitude range of each level varies according to latitude from Earth's equator to the arctic and antarctic regions at the poles.

The high étage ranges from altitudes of 3,000 to 7,600 m (10,000 to 25,000 ft) in the polar regions, 5,000 to 12,200 m (16,500 to 40,000 ft) in the temperate regions and 6,100 to 18,300 m (20,000 to 60,000 ft) in the tropical region. The major high-level cloud types comprise cirrus, cirrocumulus, and cirrostratus.[1]

The middle étage extends from 2,000 m (6,500 ft) above surface at any latitude as high as 4,000 m (13,000 ft) near the poles, 7,000 m (23,000 ft) at mid latitudes, and 7,600 m (25,000 ft) in the tropics. Altocumulus and Altostratus are the main cloud types found in the middle levels of the troposphere.

The low étage is found from surface up to 2,000 m (6,500 ft) at all latitudes. Principle cloud types found in the low levels of the troposphere include stratocumulus, stratus, and small fair weather cumulus. Several additional types usually form in the low or middle étages but typically extend into all three altitude levels. These include nimbostratus, towering cumulus congestus, and cumulonimbus.[2]


When I followed the instructions, I was led to what looked like a page to post the new article. However, the article doesn't appear to have taken. The instructions don't give any troubleshooting advice for when the attempt goes wrong. If you think there's anything else you can tell me so I can get it right, please do, but I think we have gotten to the point where I should tell you I have been diagnosed with mild Asperger's syndrome. Essentially I'm near genius at doing a few things, have average learning ability with many other things, and have some significant learning disabilities as well. I have taught myself how to do basic editing and citations on Wikipedia simply by studying and emulating what I see on the edit history pages. However, I have had no success at learning any other Wikipedia skills where I have to try and decipher what looks like a lot of incoherent jargon on all of Wikipedia's instruction pages. These pages may be OK for everyone else, but I seem to be semi-dyslexic when it come to their instructions. If my learning disability continues to get in way, I might have to ask you to post the new article for me. It won't bother me at all if you get credit for the new article instead of me.ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


  • First allow me to tell you that I love what you wrote. That will be a great stub, and will educate a lot of folks to a word they didn't know. We all have our crosses to bear, and you carry yours pretty well. I am going to direct you to a new page that I just wrote this week: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coachella_Valley_Mountains_Conservancy Perhaps it will help you see the simplicity in the basic design and layout. If you are stressed over this, and wish me to take it from here, I will be happy to copy your text, and write the stub. Just let me know buddy. There's no cupie doll, or Stuffed Panda bears given out for writing articles, so the credit is actually in our own mind. If I have to do this for you, we will both know in our minds who's article it is. Your Pal - Pocketthis (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thankyou for your help and encouraging words! The good news is it looks like I jumped to conclusions about being unsuccessful. All my new stub needed was some time to be officially reviewed by admin who passed it for inclusion in the Wikipedia canon. So there it is, my first self-created article! I've now linked it to the cloud article as you suggested where "etage" is mentioned for the first time in the intro. As it turns out, I had already equated "etage" with "altitude level" near the top of the article, which has me wondering if I should duplicate the link elsewhere in the article in case some readers miss the term and the link in the intro. What's your advice on that? ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Nice job on the article. Looks great. As far as bracketing the word in additional areas: absolutely OK. You can bracket it in any other paragraph you feel it would be beneficial. As long as you don't do it 10 times, no one is going to give you any shit about it. Also, you might want to think about a photo to go along with the article. You know best what you'd be looking for, and you can find many examples to choose from in Commons. If you need help figuring out how to place the photo where you want it, you can go to my latest article and see exactly what I did to get my photo where it is. Of course, if you need any help with that, just let me know. Good work buddy!-Pocketthis (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for your feedback Jesse. I DO want to expand my Wikipedia skills beyond basic text editing, but it's going to be a slow road. I'm just now putting some finishing touches on the cloud article so I can try to nominate it for a GA review. I'll try to do it by myself, but if it gets tossed back to me for incorrect procedure, then I'll probably have to get you to help me even with that. Last year, I tried to get a peer review of the article to see if the bigwigs would give the article an interim B grade on account of all the improvements that have been made. However, that got tossed back to me because of some miniscule formatting or messaging error that I couldn't detect or figure out. Whatever Wikipedia is for aspiring editors, user friendly it AIN'T!!! So the cloud article continues to languish at C-grade because I tend to stumble through all the hoops that an editor has to go through to get an article reviewed by admin or whomever. Once I get all that done, then I'll have a look at Wikipedia Commons and maybe some of the other technophile hangouts that I currently know nothing about!

BTW, an editor who works on the French language cloud article has suggest the title of this article should be 'Cloud étage'. It would further clarify the subject of the article and is more in accorance with WMO terminology. I noticed when I first posted my new article that the title Etage (without 'Cloud' or the accented e) had already been inserted ahead of what I put in. I still don't know how to create or modifiy an article title, so maybe you could help me with that if you agree with the proposed change. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

  • I really like Pierre, he has been a big help to me on Commons, However, in this case there are two issues I have. #1: If you're going to make any "title" changes to any article, an admin would have to do it, as the article is "Title Locked", as they all are once you save them that way. If they didn't lock the titles, just think of the mayhem the vandals could do with that...lol. #2: I disagree with Pierre this time. I like the title the way it is, because it is specific to weather and clouds. If you do a change to just Entage, you will have to do a complete French dictionary description of the word. No thanks to that idea. My advice: Leave it be. Someday, someone will write an article just of the word Engae perhaps, and then add a link to your page for when relating to weather. However, this isn't a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia, so the dictionary definition without the specific meteorology reference is kind of useless. Leave it be. Pocketthis (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • However, after reading Pierre's post again, I see no real issue with changing the name to "Cloud Enatge". You can still bracket the word in your article to take the reader to your newly titled stub. You will need to contact an admin to make the change should you decide to do it. All the best.....- Pocketthis (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
    • OR.....you could write a "new article" with the new title, copy and paste all the text from the original, and then put a quick delete request in the old article. You can then wipe the old article of all text except a link to your new article, and the delete request. Sometimes I amaze even myself!.....lol.Pocketthis (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! I couldn't quite follow the logic of your previous message. I think we're now agreed if the stub is to be specifically about the meterological use of the term etage (not entage!), it should be specified in the title. When I first created the article, I tried to give it the title 'Etage (meteorology)' which follows a pattern I've seen in other Wikipedia articles, but someone got in ahead of me and created the current title. I'll see if I can figure out the instructions you've given me for changing the title. I'll get back to you if I run into any more road-blocks; the risk of which is pretty high given my past track record and current level of technophobia! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Talking about "the impaired", just see my spelling for Etage.."entage"...lol. Have fun -Pocketthis (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Etage[edit]

Hi:

I did a little editing of your article. According to the WMO, the exact term is "cloud étage". I think it would be good to rename the article as Etage is not very specific to clouds.

P.S. : Last point, please do not overcategorize. For instance, Clouds category is a subcategory of Meteorology, no need to add Meteorology as it is redundant.

Pierre cb (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your imput and changes you made. I think I have a good knowledge of the subjects of the articles I try to work on, but I also have come to realise my editing skills are weak, either because of a lack of training or maybe just a lack of aptitude. So I always welcome help and intervention form others who have strong editing skills. I also agree with you about the title, and I'll try to change it according to your suggestion. If I can't figure out the procedure for changing the title, I have someone I can turn to for help. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Renaming is easy, you use the "Rename" menu at the top of the article. If you decide to do it and since this your article, this should not be a problem except if the name chosen is already a redirection (by the way, you do not have to use the é, e would do fine). In general, if an article is not yours, or the change of name can be contested, then you can use a "move request" to open a discussion about it. See Wikipedia:Requested moves for further details. Pierre cb (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Elephant Man or Cloud Mountain?[edit]

Chris thought you would like this one. Another unusual twilight from my area.......or is it. See if you can figure out its secret..:-)

Cloud Mountain.jpg
Desert Lava.jpg

Pocketthis (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

    • Interesting pic to say the least! With no discernable horizon, I can't begin to figure out what was happening. It doesn't even correspond to any established cloud type that I can identify. So I'll need you to clue me in on this one.
  • It is simply Upside-Down. :-) Pocketthis (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Chris, this was the original. Pocketthis (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


On a differnt topic, I'm undecided about modifying the title for the etage article. It seems to be serving the purpose for which it was intended, and right now I'm focused more on trying to make further improvments to the main cloud article. I think it's better than a C-class, but nobody at admin seems to want to consider whether it should be upgraded to a B-class. Do you know of any way to get it reviewed? Another GAN like the one foisted on me last year would get their attention, but I don't think I have the academic rigour of thought or organization to bring it to GA status by myself. The highest mark I ever got for a university level essay was a B, so I'll settle for a B-grade for this article if I can figure out how to get it there. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  • This is all I know about getting the rating up on an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment Sorry I'm not much of a help here, but I never gave a shit what Wikipedia thinks of an article, as long as I enjoy reading it, is all that has ever mattered. I can tell you my friend, that between your science and my photos, that is "one ass kicking" article. Be proud of it. You should be. You inspired me to start grabbing shots for that article. You are responsible for that article's info and beauty. P.S. Don't stress yourself about Etage. It's fine the way it is. If Pierre is concerned enough about it, he will do it for you. If he doesn't, it wasn't all that important anyway. Relax Pocketthis (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Thankyou again for the kind words, my good cloud buddy :) I guess there's a little bit of personal and professional pride involved with wanting to see the article upgraded to at least a B. Maybe a bit of paranoia too, if that's not too strong a word in this case. I DO believe the article is very good; certainly much better than it's lame counterpart in the World Book Encyclopedia. However, as long as it's only a C, someone might come along in the future and undo all our good work just to try and satisfy some administrator who may know a lot about "good editing", but piss-all about clouds. I figure a GA or B article is more likely to be left alone in the future than a C article. Re: the etage article, Pierre has made some improvements, so I think it can stand as is for now. Cheers! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

New Challenge[edit]

  • Chris ole buddy....this article has been asking for a meteorologist to help out there for over a year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation_types Think of all the fun you've had here. I would love to see you play in another one. If you're too busy, I'll certainly understand. Perhaps you can take a quick look at it, and see what you think. Thanks - Pocketthis (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Hey, howzitgoin'!? I haven't gone anywhere near as far into the subject of precipitation as I have clouds, but after giving the article a quick scan, I think I might be able to work on a few bits on a time permitting basis. I also need to compare it to another Wikipedia article on the same subject to see where they are similar and where they are different. I wonder if there is a need for 2 articles, although I can see that one focuses more on classification and the other more on other aspects. So I'll see what I can come up with in the near future. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't know there was another article. If they are really the same thing, we can petition to have them combined. What's the name of the other one? Thanks for looking - Pocketthis (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Never mind Chris...I did a search on Precipitation. This site is a joke sometimes. WTF do we 5 rain articles for? I got dizzy reading them all. lol... - Pocketthis (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ JetStream (5 January 2010). "Cloud Classifications". National Weather Service. Retrieved 31 January 2011. 
  2. ^ World Meteorological Organization, ed. (1975). Étages, International Cloud Atlas (PDF) I. pp. 15–16. ISBN 92-63-10407-7. Retrieved 26 August 2014. 

Disambiguation link notification for July 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of cloud types, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cirrus 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) 09:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)