Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:47, 27 March 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Pierre cb, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Image copyright problem with Image:Radar-angles.png

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 Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages: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)

test for me

${\displaystyle P_{r}=\left\propto {\frac {\sigma ^{0}}{R^{4}}}\qquad \qquad {\begin{cases}P_{r}=received\ power\\P_{t}=transmitted\ power\\G_{t}=gain\ of\ the\ transmitting\ antenna\\\lambda =radar\ wavelenght\\\sigma =radar\ cross\ section\ of\ the\ target\\R=distance\ from\ the\ transmitter\ to\ the\ target\end{cases}}}$

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)

In general, pictures on Misplaced Pages should not be placed in categories. The category system doesn't handle them well. Pictures on Misplaced Pages 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 . Pictures there can be linked to from Misplaced Pages articles just as easily as pictures that are actually on Misplaced Pages, and the Commons' categories are for pictures and other media.--Srleffler 16:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

WKR

I've moved the article to CWKR, per your request and based on various websites (eg - ). 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)

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)

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

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)

Image:Freezing rain.png

Question: Why did you put a NO SOURCE on Image:Freezing rain.png when is is clearly marked that it is from ENVIRONMENT CANADA which allow reproduction if source mentionned? Pierre cb 01:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It has no web reference to where it was found. // Liftarn

Image:Freezing rain.png

Hi,

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)

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)

Your comments on Misplaced Pages 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)

Weather Radar

Hi,

In the radar article you have changed the caption to "Storm front on Doppler radar screen (NOAA)". This is not a Doppler radar display (velocity) but a reflectivity (intensity of precipitation). It is an american media error to subtitute Doppler to Weather radar. Weather radar can be Doppler but a Doppler radar is not necessarily a weather radar. Sorry but I have to correct. Pierre cb 13:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on your point that a weather radar can be Doppler, but not necessarily. I was not trying to imply that this was a Doppler image, otherwise I would have said "Storm front on radar's Doppler screen". Rather, I was pointing out the fact that the radar screen belongs to the Doppler radar. Actually, I just did a direct translation of the image file name from German. To prove to you that the radar is indeed a Doppler radar, I'll show you the source of the image, whose caption states it is the "Norman Doppler radar reflectivity display showing squall line." In my haste, I removed the word reflectivity, thinking that the average reader would not understand, but that has obviously caused confusion. Can we change the caption to read:

or something to that effect? —Gintar77 23:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User page

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 ] ]). 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 4 #Meteorological categories. Graham87 10:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

BWER

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

North American ice storm of 1998 GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

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

Tornado

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

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)

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)

Interlanguage section links

I have replied at Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Side lobes. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Convective storm detection

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

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)

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)

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)

Bombardier Capital

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 15:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Snowmobile. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Srobak (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)