User talk:Jason Rees/Archive2

Thanks for the reply. Since you made the change Réunion have in fact declared a Subtropical Depression at just 25knots, so I have RV'd your change. I have made the documentation page match the currently available parameters as well (and done a little surreptitious harmonisation of the depression colors in different basins).--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 14:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 20:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Noticed something odd (to me) in the 1st paragraph of

I dont know i have asked someone who knows more about the EPAC than i to comment here.Jason Rees (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a mistake since TD's are not named, Bud is the 2nd named storms and 3rd tropical cyclone of the season.

^{Pacific Hurricane}

14:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Cyclone Zoe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tuvaluan (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) 10:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that looks fine. Nice work! J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Tropical Cyclones for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010.

good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions

• 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Russian submarine K-114 Tula
  . Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song)
  , was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at

I Was watching a video on YouTube- and at 5:26 in the video, you can see Nida spinning up.At 5:36 it appears Nida has dissipated.But on 5:40 in the video you can see a faint spiral associated with thunder storms east of the Philippines.(click this to watch:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb-yqP18iDA) It appears to be Nida but i was not sure so i went to "Digital Typhoon" and when i go back to the December 4 2009 visible image,of the Pacific, i notice a faint spiral just west of TD 28w-it was the remnants of Nida.As i checked the visible images from December-4-5-6 and than on the December 7, i watched the spiral of low level convection started to budge out some Thunder storms but wind shear was high at that time so it did not strengthen further.As i checked the December 9 image,i saw the spiral dissipating over the Philippines.

Here's the prove:

1.Look at this image from "Digital Typhoon"on December 4 and you can see a faint spiral-the remnants of Nida west of TD28w:http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/globe/color/2009/4096x4096/MTS109120400.globe.0.jpg

2.Check this image from December 6 and notice a spiral far west of the Philippines. http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/globe/color/2009/4096x4096/MTS109120600.globe.0.jpg

3.You can now clearly see the spiral west of the Philippines,and it has buged 2 Thunderclouds:http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/globe/color/2009/4096x4096/MTS109120800.globe.0.jpg

4.This image from December 8 shows the spiral strengthening slightly-you can see the low level circulation center is not fully exposed now: http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/globe/color/2009/4096x4096/MTS109120800.globe.0.jpg

5.The low dissipates over the Philippines on December 9 as shown here:http://agora.ex.nii.ac.jp/digital-typhoon/globe/color/2009/4096x4096/MTS109120900.globe.0.jpg Typhoonwikihelper (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Watch closely from December 2-3-4 and you can clearly see Nida weakening into a exposed, low level circulation area before moving southwestwards before strengthening slightly again!

I am not those ORDINARY people who just RANDOMLY edits articles! I watch closely by 100% check,image by image,track by track,and please don't misunderstand the prove i've giving you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typhoonwikihelper (talk • contribs) 05:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As shown here, the RMSC Nadi has issued the last bulletin on Tropical Cyclone Cyril? Why are they doing that? And if the storm is not "dead" yet, are there any other bulletins out there, that we can use? 174.65.96.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

What is taking so long just to find the "missing" info, on the South Pac TCs? (Such as missing seasonal effects info, 04F data, (etc.)) 174.65.96.212 (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disaster evaluations take time and we do not need Original Research such as no deaths or damage in the article.Jason Rees (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I please add this track to the 2006 Central Pacific cyclone page (under the label of Unoffical track)? It is created from the track data provided on the page itself. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Jasmine dead yet, because it is no longer mentioned on this bulletin? 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep afaik it dissipated overnight.Jason Rees (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

When did the storm dissipate? (And can I add this info the South Pac infobox?) 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

February 19, and the only place that it should be added to is Jasmines infobox before where it says extratropical after.....Jason Rees (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay... I did all of that. Now, by any chance, did you manage to webcite the final bulletin? 72.197.249.141 (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Since the floods were caused by the storms 06F - Cyril, and 8 deaths resulted, should I add them to the South Pac page? If no, then how are we going to handle this information? 72.197.249.141 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Lets be clear here, the floods were only caused by 06F dragging a trough of low pressure over Fiji. As for how we will handle it - i am still deciding but my inkling is to add a summuary of the flooding and refer them to the Fiji flooding page.Jason Rees (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

So, 06F caused 8 deaths? If that's true, may I add it to the South Pac page? 72.197.249.141 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

06F and the Trough caused the deaths and yeah add them in and add this to the reference column: <ref name="Jan 2012"/>.Jason Rees (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jason Ress, if you don't believe the information i added in TD01w, at least you can keep the original image showing TD01w exposed. If i done anything wrong please warn me as i am new to Wikipedia. 218.103.145.237 (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You are not allowed to use satellite imagery to prove anything on Wikipedia also you used an unreliable source.Jason Rees (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Plus, you are not providing anything as of thus far, that can actually sway offical JTWC or JMA data. Besides, we have posted official data, straight from those agencies. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Then were is your source for saying:" Later on the same day, the remnants of 01W were completely absorbed by the Intertropical Convergence Zone."??? besides, satellite imagery clearly show the convection was absorbed, but not the circulation center! if you don't reply i'll keep reverting that edit! because it is a clear false information. Thank You.218.103.152.230 (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the advisories issued by the JTWC and the JMA neither is right or sourced back to a

reliable source - so we cant see either.Jason Rees (talk

) 15:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What we will do is rewrite the section.Jason Rees (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Typhoonwikihelper has switched to this IP Address:

Proof? Jason Rees (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Jason is right. You can't cite images as proof of anything on Wikipedia. If you had a picture and used that to cite "the sky is blue", that info would be deleted. Wikipedia is all about proper verification. Using images is iffy, since different people can interpret them differently. We need nice, solid sources. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, my dear Hurricanehink-for giving this helpful advice/lesson--♫203.218.175.102 (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Enough of the crap please. Typhoonwikihelper - you were blocked because other editors found you a nuisance after you constantly spammed peoples pages, tried to bribe them with banisters and added random crap to pages. You then posted up a fake suicide note which shook a few people up especially when we found out that it was a fake. You were then offered a chance to come back under some very strict conditions which you managed to break within a couple of days and you were subsquently reblocked. Since then you have been even more of a nuisance after you have been editing via an IP addresses.Jason Rees (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually seriously nearly hanged-but i thought i was dumb...there's got to be more chances....WIKIPEDIA MUST BE SAVED! so i give up suicide...the truth is that everybody is spamming other user's page...it just that some admit and some do not...some see it as just a talk like me, or a warning to others not to do bad things...some mistake "warnings" are spam..218.103.145.154 (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please be noted that if i get too mad i will seriously create a

Well, to tell you the truth, the chance of that happening above is a low chance-0.4% to be exact.Sorry if it frighten you, but i just get into some temper sometimes --203.218.175.102 (talk) 10:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, OK. I have retrieved some Réunion daily summaries and pieced together some sort of track.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 14:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's good news. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/nrl.htm now converts Best Track files as well as NRL.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 21:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi- this is a message to let you know that you are one of six people tied for 64th place in the WikiCup, and so have a chance to make it to round 2- see Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Tiebreaker for details. Please reply there. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Miyagawa (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

Thanks. I've extended the Track Converter page to process storm data from the BoM file. They don't believe in regular fixes, do they?--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 22:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Best track cite renewed.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 08:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! Grapple X (submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's Cwmhiraeth (submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's Casliber (submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to Matthewedwards (submissions), whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to 12george1 (submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from Miyagawa (submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

) 23:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Smile!

A smile for you You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.0.230 (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check
  applications page
  to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I checked to see if this was referenced in the tropical cyclone naming article, but was not able to find it. You know of the source of this information? I won't add it without a source. I'm having a hard enough time sourcing what's already in the NHC article. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...now I see it. Gary's message will do for now, but we do need to find a better reference. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The extra name used in 1985 was done off the cuff, then suddenly X, Y, Z names appeared on the eastern Pacific list, which sufficed until 1992. There was no plan in place for names starting beyond W then. I think the Greek Alphabet idea was developed sometime between 1992 and 2000, but when, I'm not exactly sure. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you have half the answer. You could check Google news. Anything involved in Atlantic naming would be covered in the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale papers. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Did this storm really kill anybody? I think it is about time we know. 72.197.249.141 (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

How long is it going to take, before we can finally fill in the blanks in the Seasonal effects infobox (near the end of the article)? 72.197.249.141 (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's Grapple X (submissions) remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's Casliber (submissions) was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's Muboshgu (submissions) coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter:

Western Jackdaw, now a good article, Dana Boomer (submissions) earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by Stone (submissions) to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. Jarry1250 (submissions) managed to expand Vitus Bering

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank

Thanks for telling me that, as i am new to wiki(i'm a little spinning in my head, as i am not really sure what is right, or a little wrong). If you have any more suggestions, please contact me!--Earth100 (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Good morning Mr. Rees! I apologized for using general links that is not needed. I've always forget that one. However, with adding those things, my work for meteorological history of Tropical Depression 03W will be reverted? why? I put right information about that depression. Hope for your kind understanding. thanks bro. happy hour ! (: Jpuligan 12 (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know my works are right. Can you please just use my work as the meteorological history of TD 03W? just revert what are the wrong grammars, remove unnecessary references, etc. thanks again bro. have a good day ! (: Jpuligan 12 (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh brotha! sorry for the mistake and thanks for notifying me and the source. shalom! Jpuligan 12 (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,

I was checking the 2012 Pacific typhoon season article, when i noticed the the Season summary section text were changed into "9999" please check here to see what User:112.198.77.183 did. His edit changed the "Last storm dissipated" to December 31, 2012-but i changed it back to currently active."Total fatalities" No.8 was changed to "9999"!!! This is crazy! i hate Vandalism! why did he did that?! (I changed his edit back to the original). How can we report him?

• Click Here to view the history of the 2012 Pacific typhoon season article
• Click Here to view User:112.198.77.183's talk page
• Click here to see the changes from User:112.198.77.183's Vandalism, to normal by me.

Please reply Sincerely,--Earth100 (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Theres no point reporting him, as he only made 1 edit just to try and be funny. We all hate it but its something we have to live with from time to time.Jason Rees (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh i see...perhaps is just that i'm new, and inexperienced. Well one thing is certain: i won't tolerate any Vandalism and i will always welcome any advisesEarth100 (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User:112.198.77.28 Vandalism

This Vandalism was quite huge and extreme Vandalism, and almost the entire page was vandalized. He has also done more than one vandalism. What can we do about it?? I've never seen such extreme vandalism! It was by chance that i kept reloading the 2012 pacific typhoon season page when i saw the vandal changed Marwar to a category 5. Please reply--Earth100 (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is an "Administrator"? =Earth100 (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

okay, okay, i get it- as i seen from here. Still, a big thank you for telling me that there are such super Wikipedians! Earth100 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This link, pages 3-7. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The source only gives whole mm. No one reports rainfall beyond the nearest 0.1 mm. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

1 mm is approximately 1/25 of an inch. From that perspective, it would make the most sense to go to the nearest 0.1 mm, or round the inches to the nearest 0.1 inch. Which do you prefer? Thegreatdr (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I know this much. It detailed tropical storm and hurricane rainfall from 1899-1955, and was published in 1956 by the Washington Office of the Weather Bureau, the forerunner of NMC and HPC. I've done a few searches over the past 24 hours with no luck. =( Thegreatdr (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the first one the two links you provided. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

They apparently have two copies of this downstairs at work. I'm checking into checking out a copy, to see if it would be easy to digitize. It's quite long. If it is bound, I won't likely digitize it. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It has to be scanned eventually anyway. There's no money in the budget for NCDC to continue their CDMP project, so if I don't, no one will for years. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If we have the right version of Adobe at work, it could be online in four hours. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As it turns out, the document was only bound by two staples. It was checked out via e-mail from the downstairs reading room, and delivered to my work mailbox yesterday. I removed the staples and fed it through the photocopier at work, but the scanned document is in eight pieces/different .pdfs. Now that I have the instructions and am pretty sure that we have the correct version of Adobe, it should be easy to merge them once I get to work. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with you, there is that other table in the next section that also has those abbreviations on it also. The problem with the one table that covers up the bars and just makes an overlapping mess.United States Man (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you point me to where the policy says that dates cannot have the non-breaking spaces? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's no need to practically get into an edit war without actually citing the policy in question. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

But all I'm asking is for you to cite the provision for removing the non-breaking spaces in dates. That's the reason I reverted. I didn't see a need for you to do that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

But that's your preference.

MOS:NBSP says "A non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) is recommended to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that could be awkward at the beginning of a new line." Well, I am doing that to prevent something like "July
13", which happens when the dates aren't together. There is no reason for you to be removing them unilaterally and citing policy that doesn't exist. My preference is to have non-breaking spaces in the dates. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk

) 14:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Hink here; I finally see the point in non-breaking spaces.

^{Pacific Hurricane}

14:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

On my screen, November and 1 are on separate lines. I'm just trying to avoid that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohconfucius#.26nbsps.3B

OK, now we're getting somewhere. I take it your script was "fixing" the date format so that it says June 14, and then the dates and accessdates say June 14, 2012 as well. My preference is to have dates and accessdates as 2012-06-12. So, rather than talking to me about how my formatting is in my references, you just put up a big stink about non-breaking spaces in general? Am I correct that the basis for this little spat basically just rests in the references? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I just added the 2018 season of the tropical cyclone names at North Atlantic section on

Done--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 17:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the

Neelix (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jason,

It might be a good idea to contact whoever owns the script so that they are aware of the problem, or else it will likely wreak havoc on other articles.

Neelix (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. BTW, is American Samoa east or west of 180W?