User talk:Thegreatdr/2013archive
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Hurricane Caroline GAN
[edit]I've nominated Hurricane Caroline for GA after fixing issues in the 2009 GAN. As reviewer of the 2009 article, you might want to either re-review or just look over the current article. Buggie111 (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States
[edit]Hi David,
I've renominated List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States to go up on the main page; you can find the nomination here. Again, some objections have been raised, and I am unsure how to respond to them. Any help you can provide in this area would be greatly appreciated. I would particularly appreciate your input on the suggestion that the tables all be merged into one.
Neelix (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
HPC -> WPC
[edit]Hope your pleased by the name change to the Weather Prediction Center from the Hydro blahblah Prediction Center.Jason Rees (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
1960s satellite pics
[edit]I'm loving all of the new images you're adding! :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I had the Mariners Weather Log checked out for 1966 and 1967 for XT database development/use, and noticed there were a bunch of satellite images in it. Since it was published by ESSA, it's fair game. I've added a small fraction of what was in the book into wikipedia, so far. I think there were over 60 images in the volume. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Awesome pics! Both there and elsewhere. It'll be great when I take Inez to FAC :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep up the good work with the pics. Glad you're in the 70's now. Hope you get some of Fifi-Orlene. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, my bad. I just heard from CB that he thought Orlene might not have been an actual hurricane (despite being C3 in BT), only reason I brought that up. Good luck instead then working on the database :) I'm more excited about that than Orlene. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yea, I figured it'd take a while. HURDAT has taken nearly 10 years to do 100 years (hopefully it won't take you that long!) That sucks about the ship data. Is that an ongoing thing (being digitalized)? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm hoping the basic XT database for areas in and near North America could be done within 5 years, even if it was done by just me. The whole digitization deal, both within and outside the US federal government, suffers from a lack of people willing to do it. It is a monotonous task that few of us enjoy. I actually enjoy it...as I would imagine most consistent wikipedia editors would. The skill set and patience needed pairs up nicely with wikipedia editing. The one project the NWS had through NCDC, the CDMP, was eliminated a few years ago. This has opened the door to no-pay efforts like oldweather.org (World War I British ship log digitization), which may the main way forward within our newfound "environment of austerity." NCDC is exploring this possibility as well for digitizing more information, since the CDMP is dead. Those wiki meet-ups are helping out, but only at random. Such efforts within the Library of Congress are only making the slightest dent. There's sooooooo much left to digitize. If only we had an organized group of >= 100 people nationwide to digitize information on paper, microfilm, and microfiche as their job, so much could be done, and relatively quickly too. I bet such an effort could essentially digitize most everything in a decade. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good stimulus type of project for the nerds. Too bad the sequester, government spending less, all that jazz. I could totally imagine some Wiki editors enjoying the monotony. (I've been monotonously going through ReliefWeb reports for the October 1999 Mexican floods.) I think I heard about the British ship log being digitized. I can only imagine the possibilities for efforts like this, how that'd help reanalysis prospects, but does the lack of such efforts mean that you're stuck going through the ship logs by yourself, page by page...? o.O Or are you trying to recruit people to digitize? Heh, just when you finish (pretty much) an epic project of TC rainfall from 50s to present, now you're onto another epic project. You never stop DR, do ya? :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I try to stay busy. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good stimulus type of project for the nerds. Too bad the sequester, government spending less, all that jazz. I could totally imagine some Wiki editors enjoying the monotony. (I've been monotonously going through ReliefWeb reports for the October 1999 Mexican floods.) I think I heard about the British ship log being digitized. I can only imagine the possibilities for efforts like this, how that'd help reanalysis prospects, but does the lack of such efforts mean that you're stuck going through the ship logs by yourself, page by page...? o.O Or are you trying to recruit people to digitize? Heh, just when you finish (pretty much) an epic project of TC rainfall from 50s to present, now you're onto another epic project. You never stop DR, do ya? :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm hoping the basic XT database for areas in and near North America could be done within 5 years, even if it was done by just me. The whole digitization deal, both within and outside the US federal government, suffers from a lack of people willing to do it. It is a monotonous task that few of us enjoy. I actually enjoy it...as I would imagine most consistent wikipedia editors would. The skill set and patience needed pairs up nicely with wikipedia editing. The one project the NWS had through NCDC, the CDMP, was eliminated a few years ago. This has opened the door to no-pay efforts like oldweather.org (World War I British ship log digitization), which may the main way forward within our newfound "environment of austerity." NCDC is exploring this possibility as well for digitizing more information, since the CDMP is dead. Those wiki meet-ups are helping out, but only at random. Such efforts within the Library of Congress are only making the slightest dent. There's sooooooo much left to digitize. If only we had an organized group of >= 100 people nationwide to digitize information on paper, microfilm, and microfiche as their job, so much could be done, and relatively quickly too. I bet such an effort could essentially digitize most everything in a decade. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yea, I figured it'd take a while. HURDAT has taken nearly 10 years to do 100 years (hopefully it won't take you that long!) That sucks about the ship data. Is that an ongoing thing (being digitalized)? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, my bad. I just heard from CB that he thought Orlene might not have been an actual hurricane (despite being C3 in BT), only reason I brought that up. Good luck instead then working on the database :) I'm more excited about that than Orlene. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
XT database comments/ideas
[edit]Wow. I always find it amazing when these surprising finds come out. What's the XT database? Like, a database for extratropical cyclones?! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. It's taking a "relatively long time" to develop, especially since I'm trying to label each one with a separate identifier which is hemispheric dependent (though only covering the Northern Hemisphere). I started merging existing databases together in late January, and continue to do so. This explains my further withdrawal from wikipedia as of late. It's not easy converting several different formats into one, especially since NCDC seems to have "lost" access to about 2/3 of their modern database (much of the 1975-1995 period)...you can only access the lost portion with a 10-15 year old windows system. There are roughly 12 times as many XTs in the Northern Hemisphere as TCs. Right now, I'm just trying to merge it all together and add systems of significance to the US and North Atlantic into the database, as well as any associated names they've been coined with (outside of TWC names for the time being per NOAA policy). The North Pacific is a bit more complete. I'm limiting the Excel files to about 20,000 lines/positions each. The number of Excel files continues to grow (8 right now, but it could easily surpass 20). There's a lot of data out there to combine and find. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. So what's the basis for a storm to be in there? Just a low pressure area? (would a storm that reforms count as one or two?) This is epic, new, and exciting! So when it's done, will there be a new database for it? Man, that sucks about NCDC losing access (and I can't imagine a 10 year old computer behaving that well). How is your progress so far? Are you starting, say, at 96, or starting with the present, or just adding them in as you can? Sorry all the questions, but I think you known me well enough that I get excited over new recordkeeping and stuff! Yea, I noticed you hadn't been too active on Wiki, and you totally got a good excuse. I've been busy back in the 1950s and 60s (working on a bunch of retired and important storm articles), in case you hadn't seen. But ugh, I'm really excited at the concept for a centralized database, trackmaps, stuff, for ET's :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- All lows that went through an extratropical stage are open for inclusion. The more recent years (since 1985) aren't very well covered yet, but OPC has a winter 2000-2009 cyclone database I'm hoping to include to help fill in gaps seen in recent years. Another large gap exists from mid 1939-early 1965. The 1899-1939 period is fairly well covered, but at a once per day interval. The 1965-1974 period is missing strength information the most. Right now, the temporal resolution is variable...the goal is to get the cyclone information at 6 hourly time steps, though I'm not throwing out data at 3 hour resolution. Some quirky pressure values from the early (1899-1939) period need to be checked. Once everything is arranged, I'll likely have it in comma delimited text files on the WPC website, probably within my research subdirectory. I'll let you know when it gets to that point. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Have you asked any of the other meteorological services for help with the construction of this database? As for example sakes the JMA publicly publishes data out to the dateline and a little bit beyond at times for extratropical post tropical cyclones.Jason Rees (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've incorporated JMA info from 1950-1978. Their gale radii are done completely differently than NHC...I'm waiting to see if this can be converted in an easy/better manner than manually plotting this information before proceeding with later systems. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Good to see that you already had that thought, though it might be worth checking others out like BoM, JTWC, HKO and CMA. BTW dont forget when you do the databse that the Euroepan windstorm names are either from Oslo, Norway and Berlin, Germany and not the French! :P.Jason Rees (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've incorporated JMA info from 1950-1978. Their gale radii are done completely differently than NHC...I'm waiting to see if this can be converted in an easy/better manner than manually plotting this information before proceeding with later systems. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Back to 1899?! Jeez. Good to hear 1899-1939 is pretty done. Wouldn't 1939-1965, a good portion be covered by the "Monthly and Weather Summary for... [April 1960]"? I know they usually have tracks in there. Or is that data hard to access, given how long ago those reports are? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- The 1940s are online. I hadn't looked for 1950s and early 1960s yet...I'll use your search term when I get to those years to increase my chances for success. I do have the maps from the mid 1950s onward...but it is easier to digitize the monthly summary charts first, and then use the maps to fill in missing data. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Here's an example toward the bottom here. That's probably one you had access to, right? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yep. I see they abandoned the roman numerals from the earlier years, which is fine. The area with the low tracks is a bit larger than the 1940s era, yet smaller than the 1880s. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Smaller than in the 1880s? Damn, they were on top of their game in the 80's! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yep. I see they abandoned the roman numerals from the earlier years, which is fine. The area with the low tracks is a bit larger than the 1940s era, yet smaller than the 1880s. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Here's an example toward the bottom here. That's probably one you had access to, right? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- The 1940s are online. I hadn't looked for 1950s and early 1960s yet...I'll use your search term when I get to those years to increase my chances for success. I do have the maps from the mid 1950s onward...but it is easier to digitize the monthly summary charts first, and then use the maps to fill in missing data. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Have you asked any of the other meteorological services for help with the construction of this database? As for example sakes the JMA publicly publishes data out to the dateline and a little bit beyond at times for extratropical post tropical cyclones.Jason Rees (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- All lows that went through an extratropical stage are open for inclusion. The more recent years (since 1985) aren't very well covered yet, but OPC has a winter 2000-2009 cyclone database I'm hoping to include to help fill in gaps seen in recent years. Another large gap exists from mid 1939-early 1965. The 1899-1939 period is fairly well covered, but at a once per day interval. The 1965-1974 period is missing strength information the most. Right now, the temporal resolution is variable...the goal is to get the cyclone information at 6 hourly time steps, though I'm not throwing out data at 3 hour resolution. Some quirky pressure values from the early (1899-1939) period need to be checked. Once everything is arranged, I'll likely have it in comma delimited text files on the WPC website, probably within my research subdirectory. I'll let you know when it gets to that point. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. So what's the basis for a storm to be in there? Just a low pressure area? (would a storm that reforms count as one or two?) This is epic, new, and exciting! So when it's done, will there be a new database for it? Man, that sucks about NCDC losing access (and I can't imagine a 10 year old computer behaving that well). How is your progress so far? Are you starting, say, at 96, or starting with the present, or just adding them in as you can? Sorry all the questions, but I think you known me well enough that I get excited over new recordkeeping and stuff! Yea, I noticed you hadn't been too active on Wiki, and you totally got a good excuse. I've been busy back in the 1950s and 60s (working on a bunch of retired and important storm articles), in case you hadn't seen. But ugh, I'm really excited at the concept for a centralized database, trackmaps, stuff, for ET's :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
TC rainfall comments/ideas
[edit][1] - by the way, this has a total of only 9.5 inches of rain, but the MWR says 20 inches near Medina. Was that higher total excluded for any reason? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was unaware of the report. It wasn't included in the NCDC dataset. I'll add it to the graphic sometime in the next week. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I stumbled across a storm in May 1958 that the US Weather Bureau describes as a "subtropical depression". It affected Miami with very heavy rainfall. I was wondering, is this a storm that might be worth getting a rainfall page for, at some point? No huge deal. I'm working it into the season article, and was curious if you had stumbled across this. Cheers! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is one of the systems being considered for addition to HURDAT2. I'm surprised I don't have the system in the CLIQR database or in the TC rainfall climatology. I'll have to get to that sometime over the next few weeks. NCDC completely reconfigured their website a year or so back, so it's not as easy to grab rainfall data in a comma delimited format as it once was. I'll have to figure out the website first before I can get the data to create the graphic. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah cool. Yea, I'm not a fan of how NCDC redesigned their site (well, it looks decent now, but I miss the old way, hah). Now, when you say HURDAT2, do you mean it being included as a TD? And will other TD's going back be included (like ones in the 1930s that they mention in the other storms section)? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- TS, I believe. I don't think the current plan is to add TDs prior to 1967 to HURDAT2. Anything they designate as a TD I'll need to add to the CLIQR database sooner or later. A fix for the 1851-1940 period is coming to the CLIQR database sometime soon, to assimilate the latest reanalysis results. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ooh neat, another pre-season TS! (or SS) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- TS, I believe. I don't think the current plan is to add TDs prior to 1967 to HURDAT2. Anything they designate as a TD I'll need to add to the CLIQR database sooner or later. A fix for the 1851-1940 period is coming to the CLIQR database sometime soon, to assimilate the latest reanalysis results. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah cool. Yea, I'm not a fan of how NCDC redesigned their site (well, it looks decent now, but I miss the old way, hah). Now, when you say HURDAT2, do you mean it being included as a TD? And will other TD's going back be included (like ones in the 1930s that they mention in the other storms section)? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
[edit]
|
Keep Going! Your efforts to improve WP dont go unnoticed or unappreciated. Jason Rees (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC) |
DCA
[edit]What you said at Talk:Subtropics was interesting; when I was referring to the 32.0 °F isotherm, according to 1981–2010 normals it has moved far beyond Dulles, which went from 31.X °F in January for 1971–2000 to 33.2 °F for 1981–2010. What you may not have pointed out is that Reagan National's location on the Potomac may help to suppress summer heat at times. However, I find the following difficult to believe:
- What IS the difference between averages and normals? As I noticed for NY Central Park, this accounted for a consistent 0.8 °F skew in daily maxima.
- Dulles managed to reach −18 °F in January 1984, when, apparently, the low the same morning at Reagan was 3 °F (in recent years I have noticed a 4–8 °F diff. in annual lows, but absent of gargantuan diffs. in snow cover/winds 21 seems outrageously impossible)
- You should be aware of NOAA's surreal heat island in downtown Baltimore, when just a few blocks away, there is far more realistic data.
- Hagerstown, MD is an icebox, with figures slightly colder than even Harrisburg, PA. I seriously doubt the valley location is enough to pool air that is consistently much colder than most of the metro area. Oh, and I notice the same situation for Winchester, VA.
- Two miles outward is somehow enough for a substantial climatic change (at least in terms of lows) from National. Not when to the north that's downtown DC, to the south and west urban Arlington and Alexandria, and the east the most densely populated suburbs of MD.
I have compiled some data for DC and NYC at User:Guerrilla of the Renmin/Climate/Micro. GotR Talk 23:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I live in central Montgomery county. Yes, Frederick's temperatures are real and believable...both when they are hotter in the summer and colder in the winter. They lie in a circular depression, and when you cross the top of a hill on 270, it presents a very nice view of the whole city. My low temps here are very close of FDK. IAD usually has similar lows to me as well. You would be surprised how different the National Arboretum is when compared to National. The Arboretum should be the DC climate site...then the averages would be closer between IAD and Washington, D.C.. Also keep in mind that 30 year averages are not pure. They use a running averages and alter them somewhat based on nearby climate sites. This means that IAD and BWI are actually used to a small degree to get DCA averages. This also means that DCA's averages should be higher than their advertised 30 year, and that IAD and BWI should be colder than advertised by their 30 year averages. It is crazy. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- Great point about the National Arboretum, although the difference in lows is not as great as you seem to depict it. FYI, I have purged the examples list at the main Köppen article—perhaps we could work on building a new one later in the week (Friday afternoon at the earliest if I am even available then)? GotR Talk 05:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I live in central Montgomery county. Yes, Frederick's temperatures are real and believable...both when they are hotter in the summer and colder in the winter. They lie in a circular depression, and when you cross the top of a hill on 270, it presents a very nice view of the whole city. My low temps here are very close of FDK. IAD usually has similar lows to me as well. You would be surprised how different the National Arboretum is when compared to National. The Arboretum should be the DC climate site...then the averages would be closer between IAD and Washington, D.C.. Also keep in mind that 30 year averages are not pure. They use a running averages and alter them somewhat based on nearby climate sites. This means that IAD and BWI are actually used to a small degree to get DCA averages. This also means that DCA's averages should be higher than their advertised 30 year, and that IAD and BWI should be colder than advertised by their 30 year averages. It is crazy. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Use in transportation
[edit]- Good morning Doctor, I see that you have moved my Gallery shot back into the main page. I agree that where you have decided to place it works much better than where it had been originally. The reason I originally put it where I did, was the free space bothering me under photo#1. Your rearranging is a better job than I did. My concern for you to consider today is the Bird photo. Would you consider an aircraft in its place instead? The heading "Use in Transportation" might be better complimented by a photo you can find many good examples of here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_jet Since this is the "Sky" article, in my opinion, a nature shot doesn't seem to do the job as well as how we use our Sky for use in transportation. Something for you to ponder.....:) All the best......Pocketthis (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- == A plane could work in the sky article instead of a bird ==
=) Thegreatdr (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I'll pick one and put it up, and if you don't like my choice, please change it. Thanks Pocketthis (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Automated PR
[edit]Since your gonna be waiting a while for a review from PR of subtropics, i thought id shove subtropics through the Automated Peer Review Script. There's some useful suggestions in there although some may make you think twice - its also giving you the heads up on some dead links and a possible round robin link.Jason Rees (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Sirocco
[edit]The word "Sirocco" is not an italian one. So you cannot write or say: "Sirocco and Scirocco are italian names..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabio273 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at it and fix the article. The problem would lie if it is using any references stating so. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
MWL
[edit]You now have my Skydrive/Email Account, just let me have whichever ones in your own time, though bear in mind that if you need me to be around that im am now in UTC+1/BST until October.Jason Rees (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks David - i got both emails.Jason Rees (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok thanks - the MWL's you have already provided to me should be useful in verifying that some of the reports in that folder are from the MWL. Also please let me know when you scan more (ie 74 onwards) on that note how far do you reckon you will go?.Jason Rees (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Probably through 1997. I think they're only available online digitally from 1998 onward. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ok thanks - the MWL's you have already provided to me should be useful in verifying that some of the reports in that folder are from the MWL. Also please let me know when you scan more (ie 74 onwards) on that note how far do you reckon you will go?.Jason Rees (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks for the head's up! I shot you an email. That'll be really helpful when I eventually work on 1960's Atlantic hurricane articles. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I clicked on the left-hand side that said "Email this user". Does that not work? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Whatever you did late this morning worked. Let me know when you download them. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Are the EPAC season summarizes from 1949-68 in the MWL? This hints so. If so, I am interested in access. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- They are. The problem is, my scanning focus has been in the latter half of the articles, as well as where any satellite imagery is included, XT or tropical (the TC rainfall pages could use some older imagery). That would mean the season articles are partially scanned (much less so towards 1960 and more so towards 1976). If you'd like to take a gander, send me an e-mail and I will allow you access. But you need to download them soon afterwards. There are no guarantees that these are going to stay online for very long, depending upon how much room they take up ultimately. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I sent the email. Did you get it? YE Pacific Hurricane 05:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, try again. Ask Hink what he did to e-mail me...he initially had issues as well. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Re-sent. Did it work this time? YE Pacific Hurricane 15:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, I don't see it. Contact Jason or Hink for the information. Tell them I "grant you permission" to the information. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- I resent it to your directly this time (not via the special emaiil thingy on the left). I was told this via IRC last night to do it if it does not work. Did you finally get it? YE Pacific Hurricane 14:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- You have e-mail. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- DR, it might be worth you having a check of your preferences and making sure the right email addresses is there, since i supplied both Hink and YE with your address and in the latter case told him to email you directly rather than going trough email this user.Jason Rees (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- I just checked, and the e-mail address within the preferences is correct, so I don't know what's going on. Where do you go on wikipedia with such matters? Thegreatdr (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- DR, it might be worth you having a check of your preferences and making sure the right email addresses is there, since i supplied both Hink and YE with your address and in the latter case told him to email you directly rather than going trough email this user.Jason Rees (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- You have e-mail. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- I resent it to your directly this time (not via the special emaiil thingy on the left). I was told this via IRC last night to do it if it does not work. Did you finally get it? YE Pacific Hurricane 14:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, I don't see it. Contact Jason or Hink for the information. Tell them I "grant you permission" to the information. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Re-sent. Did it work this time? YE Pacific Hurricane 15:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- No, try again. Ask Hink what he did to e-mail me...he initially had issues as well. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- I sent the email. Did you get it? YE Pacific Hurricane 05:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- They are. The problem is, my scanning focus has been in the latter half of the articles, as well as where any satellite imagery is included, XT or tropical (the TC rainfall pages could use some older imagery). That would mean the season articles are partially scanned (much less so towards 1960 and more so towards 1976). If you'd like to take a gander, send me an e-mail and I will allow you access. But you need to download them soon afterwards. There are no guarantees that these are going to stay online for very long, depending upon how much room they take up ultimately. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Are the EPAC season summarizes from 1949-68 in the MWL? This hints so. If so, I am interested in access. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Whatever you did late this morning worked. Let me know when you download them. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
have you checked your junk email folder? it may sound obvious but that maybe your solution as the Email This User Feature is working ok as i just emailed myself.Jason Rees (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- No mail from the wiki is within it. Only five ads. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- Bizzare - i wonder if its your email server taking them out because Hink and YE may of never emailed you before and are doing so via WP, rather than directly. (PS: Downloaded a few more of the MWL's last night and am now over the moon since i will now be able to expand 87-88 SPAC substantially because of you. I will also be able to wind Hink up since Bola was his article) Thanks.Jason Rees (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Remember, no one owns any of these articles. =) But I understand. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Bizzare - i wonder if its your email server taking them out because Hink and YE may of never emailed you before and are doing so via WP, rather than directly. (PS: Downloaded a few more of the MWL's last night and am now over the moon since i will now be able to expand 87-88 SPAC substantially because of you. I will also be able to wind Hink up since Bola was his article) Thanks.Jason Rees (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Complete issue scans from portions of the 1990s and late 1970s have been added. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks - cant wait to get more into the 80's especially since it will no doubt contain some pretty significant information on the Wettest TC on record.Jason Rees (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 9
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hurricane Agnes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cape Breton (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) 19:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Files missing description details
[edit]are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Hi, thanks for this nice addition. I have tweaked the article a bit and changed the infobox ("infobox journal" is for peer-reviewed academic journals). If I am not mistaken, the article is eligible for the "Did You Know" section on the WP start page and I suggest you nominate it. Let me know if you need help with that (but the procedure is reasonably well described on the DYK pages). Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 17
[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.
- List of locations with a subtropical climate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to 35th parallel
- Subtropics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Dracaena
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Re: Fico
[edit]Yea, good call removing that. When I rewrote Fico's article (over six years ago) our coverage wasn't all that great on records and stuff, and we weren't that clear over EPAC, CPAC, what counted as what. There was some WP:OR going on back then, so it's good we're getting around to cleaning it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Re: SWIO
[edit]And done! :) Nice work. It's been bugging me for a while how bad our SHEM coverage is. Tonight is a good step at rectifying that. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why would someone have told YE to stop? His editing has improved through the years, and he has had a number of GA's pass. That's the strange question. It is nice that I had the sandbox article to help with in the mid 1970s. I did find a decent site for help here. I know the project has used this web page for the TC monthly summaries in the past. Once we match the systems from MWL with the named ones, more information should be available. I did some of that in mid 1970s with the sat imagery. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- According to my IRC logs, I was told by JR to stop because I was at a year where there is no SPAC article (like the SPAC controls everything and the fact that I was creating too many stubs and to improve the ones we have, which latter escalated into an argument. YE Pacific Hurricane
- (edit conflict) That page is decent, but I prefer International best track, which has various warning centres' intensities. That alone should be enough to help expand most season articles in most basins with decent technical info. As for YE, yea, as he said above, basically told not to make too many stubs. I think it was holding the project back a bit by not having those season articles. After all, at one time, the Atlantic was dominated by stub articles. It's cyclical. However the Atlantic is, the other basins will soon follow, first the EPAC, then the WPAC, then the rest. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I like to use their BT directly from the RMSC site, but that is just me. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- YE does it really matter now, we have more sources available to us now including the Annual reports from Reunion, Australian Meteorological Magazines, MWL and the Global Tropical Cyclone Atlas which contains several of the Nadi TCRs and several of the MWL reports amongst other things.Jason Rees (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- IT does not, I am just telling him want happened months ago. YE Pacific Hurricane 12:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- YE does it really matter now, we have more sources available to us now including the Annual reports from Reunion, Australian Meteorological Magazines, MWL and the Global Tropical Cyclone Atlas which contains several of the Nadi TCRs and several of the MWL reports amongst other things.Jason Rees (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I like to use their BT directly from the RMSC site, but that is just me. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar! :) Yea, I love working with others on here. It's great working together and getting big projects done, like how a few editors including myself got the 1950's Atlantic hurricane articles all to GA or better. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Awesome!! Downloading now. :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations
[edit]
|
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
| Over the past few weeks you have done a substantial number of edits. Those edits involve adding necessary details to Southern Hemisphere cyclone seasons, and the addition of satellite pictures from the Mariners' Weather Log. All of those were little incremental edits, little incremental edits that improved the encyclopedia in those areas. In thanks of your efforts in this area, I award you this barnstar. Congratulations and keep up the good work. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC) |
Thank you for the cookies. 03:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Help test new SuggestBot design
[edit]We have developed an exciting new version of SuggestBot’s interface with some cool features! Volunteer to be one of the first users to try it and help us make it better by answering a short survey! If you’re interested in participating, leave us a message on SuggestBot’s user talk page. Regards from Nettrom, SuggestBot’s caretaker. 18:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks...
[edit]...for reverting my user page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- =) Not a problem. Was pretty sure you weren't Alfred E. Neumann. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not really but a nice young woman once commented that the picture reminded her of Howdy Doody. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Re: 1970-71
[edit]I saw, nice work. Also, the NIO should be split back to 1970 when you get a chance. As for GAN's, I have 5 of them up atm. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 28
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Florida State Seminoles football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kicker (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) 11:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Depressions in the Atlantic basin
[edit]Jason said you should know the answer to this... I've been working on migrating the button bars over to the new style, and I ran into a problem. Some of the boxes have cyclones labeled just "depression" (i.e. 1973 and 1979). Looking at their seasons, in the Other storms section, some of them are described as tropical depressions and others are just described as depressions ([2] and [3] for example). When making the new boxes, should they just be switched over to being labeled TDs (even though they weren't numbered by NHC), or should we set up a new parameter that works for "depression" in the new button bars? There's a discussion going on at the project page - feel free to respond there. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
MWL 86/87 & 92-95
[edit]Hi David, Is there any news on when you will be able to put up the above MWL's? Sorry if im a bit inpatient - i just wanna go through the rest of them ASAP and figure out which SPAC storms are covered by the MWL's and or the Global TC Atlas and chuck a list somewhere usefull.Jason Rees (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Sweet.Jason Rees (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- As always im seriously grateful. BTW since you work for NOAA in Maryland i was wondering if you could possibly please find and scan these two reports from the JTWC that talk about "Forecast Verification and Reconnaissance Data for Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclones" from 1980-82 and 1982-85. I really suspect that they could be really handy to refer to, for our ongoing effort to get the SHEM seasons up to scratch. Thanks.Jason Rees (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I thought all the full JTWC reports had been scanned years ago by the Navy. You're sure it's not on their website? Remember, they are part of the Navy, not NOAA. A search of the NOAA Central Library's electronic catalog has records for 1980-1984 in Silver Spring, but not 1985. None of these lie at the NCWCP library location, which has been my primary source of MWLs. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- My boob regarding the 84/85 difference i must of misread the 1985 ATCR (Doh!). Anyways the ATCR's are on there but for whatever reason the 1985 ATCR is the first season to contain all the SHEM data as between 1980-81 (when they started warning for the SHEM) and 83-84 they just published the data as a technical note in cooperation with Pearl Harbour. A Google does not reveal anything bar pointing me towards the World Cat which in turn points me towards various NOAA/University Libraries in the States and the BoM library in Victoria. Ill keep looking online but thought id be cheeky and ask you since you work for NOAA and are in Maryland and maybe able to get your hands on it easier than i can - if you cant no worries :). Thanks.Jason Rees (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I thought all the full JTWC reports had been scanned years ago by the Navy. You're sure it's not on their website? Remember, they are part of the Navy, not NOAA. A search of the NOAA Central Library's electronic catalog has records for 1980-1984 in Silver Spring, but not 1985. None of these lie at the NCWCP library location, which has been my primary source of MWLs. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- As always im seriously grateful. BTW since you work for NOAA in Maryland i was wondering if you could possibly please find and scan these two reports from the JTWC that talk about "Forecast Verification and Reconnaissance Data for Southern Hemisphere Tropical Cyclones" from 1980-82 and 1982-85. I really suspect that they could be really handy to refer to, for our ongoing effort to get the SHEM seasons up to scratch. Thanks.Jason Rees (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The IU-Bloomington Extratropical/Tropical cyclone database
[edit]I cant say ive seen any tracks but the reason i deduced it was NOAA's one was because it says it is and had no reason to doubt that until you posted on the project page tonight. I think if someone could figure out how to install the programme (Maybe using a programme called DOSBox), then we maybe able to find the tracks. BTW this atlas thing contains a lot more than just the MWL articles, as ive seen articles that are the same as the BoM Seasonal summary for RA V and articles that appear to be a more fuller copy of Nadi's TCR than the MWL's.Jason Rees (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dare i ask what it does when you put the CD in? Is your computer picking it up and seeing it in Windows Explorer? If it can instantly run it then great but if not try and find a file on it called set up or similar, right click on it and bring up properties then find compatibility mode and select run this programme in compatibility mode for Windows 95. Let me know how you get on :).Jason Rees (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Colour of weatherboxes
[edit]I am not sure what you meant by the last comment you said about the bottomost weather box in the discussion about the colours to be used in weatherboxes. Does this implies that you prefer standard temperature colours and green precipitation? Ssbbplayer (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- The bottom Haikou example with the reds, oranges, greens, and blues. I am for green precipitation. I like the idea of a reddish/orangish for highs, bluish/violetish for lows, and likely white text on a black background for snow. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I like that idea too. I generally prefer using standard temperature colours and green for precipitation because green helps prevent the blending of many blue colours and is desirable as precipitation makes the landscape green in moderate amounts. But if more than one user (including me) follows the conventions listed in the discussion for the weatherbox (use blue colours for very cold places, pastels when temperature ranges are not large), how come only my edits were reverted even though it could be done on other users (with the same explanation on my talk page) that mass add green precipitation colours? Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I just bolded the five options in order to make it easier to read and vote and avoid accidentally double voting in one option. Ssbbplayer (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- I like that idea too. I generally prefer using standard temperature colours and green for precipitation because green helps prevent the blending of many blue colours and is desirable as precipitation makes the landscape green in moderate amounts. But if more than one user (including me) follows the conventions listed in the discussion for the weatherbox (use blue colours for very cold places, pastels when temperature ranges are not large), how come only my edits were reverted even though it could be done on other users (with the same explanation on my talk page) that mass add green precipitation colours? Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: question
[edit]Normally, discussions that involve templates are done on project-wide talk pages, so many more people see them by default. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
MWL Online
[edit]You may be interested in this link that i found last night while browsing for material on Fran.Jason Rees (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- If its any consolation your collection is more complete than theirs which is missing several issues during the 80's and 90's in the 20s and 40s, but i agree that the timing sucks. I will also note that several users of this wiki: Hink, CB, YE etc may not of been aware of the publication even existing had it not of been for you. As for the images, i don't know is the honest answer. Jason Rees (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- I let NHC know as well, just in case. Like us, they do have the print versions accessible. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- You might like to inform them that some of their old products are on their (eg: The Bi-monthly Diagnostic Reports).Jason Rees (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm unaware of the bi-monthly diagnostic report. When does that date from? Thegreatdr (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ive found records from 88-91, so early 90s/late 80s.Jason Rees (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah id always wondered how the NHC got their main reports out to the public before the World Wide Web was invented for public usage by Sir Tim Berners Lee.Jason Rees (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm guessing by mail, or possibly gopher system late in its publication. In the early 1990s, their preliminary storm reports used to be housed in a file cabinet in/near the hurricane center director's office. I'll ask someone about it. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah id always wondered how the NHC got their main reports out to the public before the World Wide Web was invented for public usage by Sir Tim Berners Lee.Jason Rees (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ive found records from 88-91, so early 90s/late 80s.Jason Rees (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm unaware of the bi-monthly diagnostic report. When does that date from? Thegreatdr (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- You might like to inform them that some of their old products are on their (eg: The Bi-monthly Diagnostic Reports).Jason Rees (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I let NHC know as well, just in case. Like us, they do have the print versions accessible. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
As you may have seen, Cyclone Anne has just been published today with thanks to you and your MWL scanning.Jason Rees (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
[edit]We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Have time on Saturday?
[edit]I'm sorry for the last-minute notice, but on Saturday, June 8, from 3 to 6 PM, Wikimedia DC and the Cato Institute are hosting a Legislative Data Meetup. We will discuss the work done so far by WikiProject U.S. Federal Government Legislative Data to put data from Congress onto Wikipedia, as well as what more needs to be done. If you have ideas you'd like to contribute, or if you're just curious and feel like meeting up with other Wikipedians, you are welcome to come! Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.
I hope to see you there!
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for D.C.-area events by removing your name from this list.)
Harej (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
[edit] So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
Wow!
[edit]You have an incredible number of good articles, many on substantial topics (wind, etc.) with high readership. Kudos.
Came here after looking at high pressure area (11,000 views per month and GA). TCO (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Re: Huracan Fox
[edit]¡Muchas gracias por el libro! Espero que podría leer español con la lanza nativa, pero tengo miedo cuando necessito leer que mucho informacion! Pues, posible usara User:Titoxd o User:Hylian Auree. --♫ Huracanhink (hablar) 17:05, 17 Junio 2013 (UTC)
(in English: Thanks a lot for the book! I wish I could read Spanish like a native speaker, but I get afraid when I have to read that much info! I'll possibly use Tito or Auree, though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC))
- Oh, and if they say no, I'll be sure to use the book and fix up Fox's article at some point. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- 1941-45 HURDAT is already up and has been up in various disguises since just before Arlene developed.Jason Rees (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- You mean Andrea JR? And DR, at least it'll help the article :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
- 1941-45 HURDAT is already up and has been up in various disguises since just before Arlene developed.Jason Rees (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
[edit]We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, July 13!
[edit]Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, July 13 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 00:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Precipitation vs. days with precipitation
[edit]Are precipitation (monthly totals) and days with precipitation (Avg. precipitation days) are related to each other or should they be interpreted differently? Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- They're only related in that both deal with precipitation. You can have a wet month with one day of significant rain, or a dry month with many days of very little rain. I don't think there's a clear correlation between the amount of rain days and the overall monthly precipitation total. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
You're Invited: Luce and Lunder Edit-a-thon at the Smithsonian
[edit]| File:SAAM facade.jpg American Art Museum
|
Luce and Lunder Edit-a-thon at the
Smithsonian American Art Museum You're invited to the Luce and Lunder Edit-a-thon, part of a series of edit-a-thons organized by the Smithsonian American Art Museum to add and expand articles about American art and artists on Wikipedia. This event will include a catered lunch and special tours of the Luce Foundation Center for American Art and the Lunder Conservation Center at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. 9:15 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. on Friday, July 19, 2013 Capacity is limited, so please sign up today! If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from our distribution list.
Message delivered by Dominic·t 03:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC). |
 Luce Foundation Center
|
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
[edit]We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, August 24!
[edit]Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, August 24 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 03:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
[edit]We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you free on Wednesday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
[edit]Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Wednesday, August 24 at our K Street office.
The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.
We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 11:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Meet up with local Wikipedians on September 14!
[edit]Are you free on Saturday, September 14? If so, please join Wikimedia DC and local Wikipedians for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages are welcome!
For more information and to sign up, please visit the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 18:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
[edit]Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 5 at our K Street office.
The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.
We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 14:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I hate to bother you about this, but are you in the process of making a rainfall map for Tropical Storm Andrea (2013)? There are rainfall stats in the storm's Tropical Cyclone Report, but no map accompanying it. Thanks, --12george1 (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Andrea has a rainfall map online...it's been online for a while now. Just haven't got the web page constructed yet... Thegreatdr (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
[edit]We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Better source request for File:Calvin1993filledrainblk.gif
[edit]Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
[edit]Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 26 at our K Street office.
The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.
We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 05:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Updating Cold air damming Looking for your input
[edit]Hi I'm part of a Cornell University group that's looking to contribute to the Cold air damming article, and we saw that you were a big contributor, and we're looking for some input. One of the members of the group is a Senior undergrad here at Cornell studying meteorology . The other two members are studying Information Science. If you take a look on the Talk Page of CAD, at the bottom you can see the outline of what we were planning. We're eager to see if you have any suggestions! Nebelmeister (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Make sure you work with these guys David, i think a pro met/University Colab could be an interesting mix here and may lead to other things :).Jason Rees (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's being done. Sometimes you have to show people by example -- I'm not sure of their understanding of the markup language on here. I'm trying to emphasize that it needs to be understandable to lay people (which it may not right now) by adding descriptions, wikilinks, and imagery. I'm trying to guide them...but my additions have not always been understandable to lay people either. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping them out im sure they appreciate it as well as i do. BTW I hope from this side of the pond that your not being affected by the shutdown too much. :) Jason Rees (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- I work like I always do, but I'm not allowed to take any sick leave or vacation time. I also don't know when I'll be fully paid. Yes, I'm impacted. =/ Thegreatdr (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- That sucks DR! Thanks for doing your duty as a weather professional, but damn, hope it gets resolved soon. :/ --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- I work like I always do, but I'm not allowed to take any sick leave or vacation time. I also don't know when I'll be fully paid. Yes, I'm impacted. =/ Thegreatdr (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping them out im sure they appreciate it as well as i do. BTW I hope from this side of the pond that your not being affected by the shutdown too much. :) Jason Rees (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's being done. Sometimes you have to show people by example -- I'm not sure of their understanding of the markup language on here. I'm trying to emphasize that it needs to be understandable to lay people (which it may not right now) by adding descriptions, wikilinks, and imagery. I'm trying to guide them...but my additions have not always been understandable to lay people either. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you free on Sunday? Join us for a special Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!
[edit]Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for a special WikiSalon at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library's Digital Commons Center. We will gather at 3 PM on Sunday, October 13, 2013 to discuss an important topic: what can Wikipedia and the DC area do to help each other? We hope to hear your thoughts and suggestions; if you have an idea you would like to pursue, please let us know and we will help!
Following the WikiSalon, we will be having dinner at a nearby restaurant, Ella's Wood Fired Pizza.
If you're interested in attending, please sign up at the event page. We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 01:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
[edit]We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
[edit]
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, pleaseconsult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library Survey
[edit]As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)