User talk:ClimateGuy1

July 2019

Hello, I'm Flyer22 Reborn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Climate sections in college and university articles

Please stop adding "Climate" sections to college and university articles. A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities‎ about this material so we can come to a consensus. Your participation is encouraged! ElKevbo (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic City

Hi. I realized that you did changed the climate data for Atlantic city where you did replaced it from NOAA to PRISM. I had to revert your edit since it was problematic for a couple of reasons:

When comparing these two edits with the old weather box and your recent edit, your edit removed the record lows, record high, and sunshine data. These are important data that is present in all major cities in the US and also in major cities around the world. Next time, please do not delete these important sources of data. Instead, incorporate it into the current existing climate table (e.g. the prism source contains dewpoint info and relative humidity). A lot of locations in the US use NOAA as the main source, so just add mean temperatures, humidity, and dew point to the existing climate table using the PRISM source rather than replacing it completely. Climate data is already hard to find in many countries and I do not see the point in trying to remove important info like record high, record low, and sunshine data that is available for US cities. Do not make it harder for readers to search for the data (a lot of it is presented in a format that is not user friendly like sunshine data).
NOAA is the official weather source. In many city articles that have a climate section, it is preferred to use official sources first and then using other reliable sources as a second or even third source. PRISM is a reliable source but going back to point 1, I think it is better to add on, rather than mass delete data and then replacing it as you did with the one in Atlantic City where you replaced the data from NOAA with data coming only from PRISM. In this case, you can have the first source coming from NOAA with PRISM as a second source (see this example).

Thanks. Ssbbplayer (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Long climate sections with excessive detail

We don't need a big paragraph of climate stats for every little town. Please find an appropriate place to propose and discuss such material. There may be a climate info project page on Wikipedia where you can find guidance. I suggest you slow down and look for one. I assume you are the same editor who was on a similar campaign last summer from NJOIT. Please do not resume this campaign. Eric ^talk 02:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think this is all good, looking at a few of your edits .... but perhaps for towns with no official weather station we could make the weather box template hidden by default and mention that the statistics are interpolated. —Soap— 20:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PRISM

Hi. Could you explain please how to get record highs and lows from the PRISM site, as you did here? I would like to see if we could use this tool to add climate data for places like Baxter State Park in Maine with no official NWS station. As above, hard data is superior to interpolated data, but interpolated data is superior to no data at all. Thanks, —Soap— 20:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you for your reply, and for introducing me to this site. The interface is much more powerful than it looked to me at first. This is something I have wanted for many years ... climate data for places where no weather station exists nearby. My only regret is that it excludes Alaska.

You seem to be typing up these climate summaries by hand, which must be a lot of work. Although I think that adding tables like these to articles with no other possible source of climate data is generally good, I dont make the rules and I dont want you to spend hours upon hours typing up more of these and then see them all get deleted by other editors. That's one reason I'm going to hold off on adding the table you built for me to the Baxter Park article ... another is that, while the data is valuable, the people who visit a mountainous location are likely more interested in what the weather is like high up than what it is like at the ranger station. Since we would then need multiple tables to cover the whole park, it might be best to leave out the data entirely. Though I might be interested in a less prominent climate section for articles like these which could perhaps link to the PRISM calculator and provide basic details such as a range of values.

The only other thing I'll stress is that anyone who uses PRISM as a data source should make it loud and clear to our readers that it's interpolated data, and not actual records. This probably makes little difference to most readers but it's important that we closely follow established guidelines regarding verifiability of sources. And indeed, it's possible that a discussion will ultimately come up in which the Wikipedia community as a whole decides to reject the use of PRISM and any other interpolated climate data altogether. I think this new tool has a place on Wikipedia, but as above, I dont make the rules and no one person has such power on their own; we need to discuss issues like this as a community.

Best regards, —Soap— 21:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did also just now noticed this edit of yours. Please be careful. This was from December, so I trust that you've improved since then. —Soap— 21:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of climate details

This edit is one of many that has removed climate details from articles, with explanation. Why are these details being removed? Alansohn (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit again removed the climate summary that had been added to the article. The prose provides a useful summary to the massive weather box. Why not keep both? Alansohn (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alansohn,

At first, I didn't understand what you meant by removal of climate details. I think I understand now. You meant the removal of a lot of the text above the weather box. I had started the climate sections years ago, so it's actually my own writing I was removing. I've heard of some people not liking long climate sections and the big weather boxes. I don't know why. I love them. As I've updating the boxes from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020 normals, I decided to remove most of the wording to make them shorter. I've been leaving up the part with the Koppen Climate link and and climate type link. I figured if people what to know what they are, they can click on those and everything is explained on those pages.

As far as the the snow climatology (and how to source it), I take the data from NOHRC, download it into my ArcGIS software, and extract it into an excel table for any point. It's the best snow data out there other than an actual airport, COOP or CoCoRaHs etc.

Thanks for showing me how to get multiple sources in. ClimateGuy1 (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing source for snowfall in Weather box

You've still been deleting content about climate, as well as asking about how to add a source for snow data. In this edit, as in others, you added to parameters for source, with the second paramter for snow data being added outside of the infobox. All that was needed was done here in this edit to remove the two curly brackets after the first source and to label the second one as "Source 2". Alansohn (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alansohn,

At first, I didn't understand what you meant by removal of climate details. I think I understand now. You meant the removal of a lot of the text above the weather box. I had started the climate sections years ago, so it's actually my own writing I was removing. I've heard of some people not liking long climate sections and the big weather boxes. I don't know why. I love them. As I've updating the boxes from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020 normals, I decided to remove most of the wording to make them shorter. I've been leaving up the part with the Koppen Climate link and and climate type link. I figured if people what to know what they are, they can click on those and everything is explained on those pages.

As far as the the snow climatology (and how to source it), I take the data from NOHRC, download it into my ArcGIS software, and extract it into an excel table for any point. It's the best snow data out there other than an actual airport, COOP or CoCoRaHs etc.

Thanks for showing me how to get multiple sources in.

~Tom ClimateGuy1 (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]