User talk:Typhoon2013/Archive4

Typhoon2013's Archives
Barnstars 2013 // 2014 // 2015 // 2016 // 2017 2018 // 2019 // 2020 // 2021 // 2022

This is the 4th Archive of Typhoon2013's talk page. Archive 4 includes messages from August 5, 2015 - March 7, 2016

Hey there! I wasn't sure if you knew about the WPTC standards for article ratings. C class usually means that everything is sourced, and storms have a semblance of a met history and some impact. Start class is more relaxed, just that every storm has a section. For B-class, it has to be borderline GA, meaning no typos and every section is reasonably complete. Some of the Pacific typhoon articles that you reassessed really shouldn't be higher than start class due to major unsourced sections and/or incomplete sections. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink mobile: @Hurricanehink: Ok. For me about the 2014 PTS article, it looks fine but I think I was too much on the rating, but is C ok? Well the 2011 PTS article rating is C whilst both the 2002 and 03 seasons are at GA and FA ratings. Also my goal for the 2015 PTS article is to have a rating higher than a Start and that's why lately I'm trying to add more info and sources to the other storms there (have finished Chan-hom, Nangka and Halola lately). PS: Seen your other message at bottom (thanks BTW) and If I am going to reply to you with a ping, do I ping Hurricanehink or Hurricanehink mobile? -- Typhoon2013 10:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding 2014, it's in good shape, but I don't want people thinking it's closer to GA status than it is. Majority of sections don't have an impact paragraph. The article is good covering meteorological histories, but it's lacking on details on what the storms did, which is arguably more important. By contrast, 2002 and 2003 are done. They have impact paragraphs and everything is sourced. Thanks for adding info though to the recent storms, but you added too much storm history. For Halola and Nangka, there's no need for two meteorological paragraphs each when there is already an article. It's more useful having info on the effects, like the deaths, damage, etc. Does that make sense? And you can ping either account or just reply here, I have your page on my Watchlist. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please use analysis time instead of update time. I think I have reminded you many times and I hope I will not see the future position in the future again. It may be considered as vandalism if you keep use that improper way to describe. -- Meow 21:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Meow: Wait what do you mean? I am following both the JMA and JTWC advisory times. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC).

@Typhoon2013: You should follow time of the position.

WTPN31 PGTW 151500
MSGID/GENADMIN/JOINT TYPHOON WRNCEN PEARL HARBOR HI//
SUBJ/TROPICAL CYCLONE WARNING//
RMKS/
1. TROPICAL STORM 16W (GONI) WARNING NR 007    
   02 ACTIVE TROPICAL CYCLONES IN NORTHWESTPAC
   MAX SUSTAINED WINDS BASED ON ONE-MINUTE AVERAGE
   WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
    ---
   WARNING POSITION:
   151200Z --- NEAR 14.4N 145.8E
     MOVEMENT PAST SIX HOURS - 300 DEGREES AT 06 KTS
     POSITION ACCURATE TO WITHIN 060 NM
     POSITION BASED ON CENTER LOCATED BY SATELLITE
   PRESENT WIND DISTRIBUTION:
   MAX SUSTAINED WINDS - 050 KT, GUSTS 065 KT
   WIND RADII VALID OVER OPEN WATER ONLY
   RADIUS OF 034 KT WINDS - 055 NM NORTHEAST QUADRANT
                            050 NM SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
                            055 NM SOUTHWEST QUADRANT
                            060 NM NORTHWEST QUADRANT
   REPEAT POSIT: 14.4N 145.8E

For example, you should use 1200Z instead of 1500Z in this case. -- Meow 15:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Meow: So is this about the coordinates as well? Because it is, I follow the JMA instead of the JTWC for coordinates in infoboxes. Do you want me to switch to the JTWC warning instead of the JMA? -- Typhoon2013 08:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

@Typhoon2013: No matter what you follow, you should use when the typhoon is, not when the agency issues. -- Meow 13:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I know your edits are always made in good faith, but I can't overlook blatant plagiarism. After reading through an article by The Weather Channel (which owns WUndergound), I noticed a distinct similarity in the writing for the brief bit of impact info in the Mariana Islands. The text appears to have been added by you. The given source is basically a variant of the TWC version but supplied through WUnderground. Although you properly cited it, a good portion of the content was directly copy/pasted from the article which is a violation of Wiki policy (and writing in general). I have removed the content accordingly. Always make sure to summarize content in your own words to avoid plagiarism. If you can't do so, quote the desired pieces you want to add into the article so it's known that the material is taken directly from the cited source. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to avoid so much crap being placed on the naming sections of each article, especially when some of it is redundant to other bits and not citeable. I also prefer the table format for names in WPAC since it looks a lot nicer and takes up less room than the old versions.Jason Rees (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: SorryI forgot about it. How about in the 2015 PTS article though? Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:51, 28 August August 2015 (UTC)

For now just keep it to the old format, once the season is over we can play with it.Jason Rees (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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

• On the 2015 Pacific typhoon season page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I used WeatherBELL ACE index for my information. INFOWeather1 (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for helping me out by showing me how to upload images. Could you possibly help me with how to edit current hurricane infoboxes? Salamat sa inyo! Izmik (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Izmik: OMG, sorry it's a very late reply. To be honest, I didn't see this because I thought you were a bot. Anyways, you want to help further in the project by updating current infoboxes? Are you aware about this (you can contribute in here): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Poll: Current infoboxes. So what basin are you talking about here so I can help? Example: WPac, Atl etc. Also you are Filipino too? Me too. -- Typhoon2013 02:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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

• On the 2015 Pacific typhoon season page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Please be careful when checking names, the names Mick, Oli and Tomas were retired after their last usages, while Moses, Opeti and Troy were promoted to the main list. It is also worth noting that the name Ola was used earlier this year in the SPAC instead of Opeti as the TCOP claims. I am also not a fan off adding retirement sections to articles and prefer it to just be a line in the article.Jason Rees (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Then is there something wrong with the updated SPac name list? I was confused when they put Opeti instead of Ola. -- Typhoon2013 09:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at page 21 of the 2010 French Version of the TCOP, you should see the name Troy where Tomas is etc. If you also have a look at page 26 of the 2014 TCOP, You will find that the names Tomas etc are listed as retired. I think i am going to send an email to the WMO Press Office and see if they can correct the mistakes on the WMO's list of names.Jason Rees (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

On a side note if you could find us some information on why PAGASA names their systems id be grateful.Jason Rees (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This source is in Vietnamese:

• [1] - Damage from EVN - 4,9b (210 thousand)
• [2] - Damage in Quang Nam Province: 3b (140 thousand).

CVQT (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Meant to hit a different button to leave an edit summary, but hit rollback by mistake. Anyways, that particular news source mis-attributed the flooding to Goni. It was caused by a separate system that preceded Goni, as evidenced by numerous other news sources, but news only broke as Goni was close to the Korean Peninsula. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: I really hate the news lately worldwide and I either believe it or not. So you are saying that the 40 deaths was caused by another storm? Or maybe both storms? -- Typhoon2013 10:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It's confusing, yeah. It was caused by a completely separate system the weekend prior to Goni. News of the flooding broke on Wednesday August 26, and indicated that the flood event took place that past Saturday (August 22). Goni was still near the Philippines on August 22 so there's no way it could have played a role in the floods. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Tbh when it gets to TCs, impacts and intensities, you are so smart and thanks for a reference. However what's now confusing (maybe just me) is that when I looked at an August animation from Digital Typhoon, there were no systems I could see affecting Korea during the 22nd. -- Typhoon2013 10:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You pick up on things after working on Wiki for over 8 years I certainly still make mistakes though. That's why a community project like this is so awesome, even if you make a mistake someone will be there to help out~ It's hard to make out on the lower resolution images from Digital Typhoon, but the affected area was Rason in the northeastern-most part of North Korea (near the Russian border). I see a burst of convection over the region around 03:00 UTC on August 22, which may have been the cause of the floods. This matches up pretty well with the local report of the floods taking place in the morning (North Korea is 8.5 hours ahead of UTC). Overall system appears to be a stalled out non-tropical low over Northeast China. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit, while undoubtedly in good faith, was a step back: the new wording contained various grammar errors. I have been trying to refrain from asking you to fix your grammar, but messing up the grammar of a whole section is too much. Phrases such as "the tropics decreased a bit" have no meaning, for example. If you need help with wording, please ask another editor.

What concerns me is that you have been making the same mistakes repeatedly even though I have been fixing them. I don't expect you to learn overnight but I also want you to show evidence that you are attempting to improve your grammar rather than having me fix it all. Sorry if this message comes off negatively, but I hope this is the last time I post about this here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to incite some sort of internal conflict on Wikipedia, and I know that United States Man said do not revert and so forth (I disagree with his reasoning), but for now, please only update at 0Z. If you've already updated some of them to September 27, that's okay, but at least for the immediate future, please wait until 0Z. Some people on Wikipedia seem to think it is better to wait until 0Z (such as me), and others think it should be updated early (like United States Man). I ask that you wait until 0Z on updates since that would hopefully minimize reversions. Sorry if I've made this hard to understand. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: That's what I was doing in the last several weeks FYI. Otherwise except today because today is the start of Daylight Saving here in NZ so the time changes. -- Typhoon2013 00:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Coordinated Universal Time doesn't change with Daylight Saving Time, so while the time will change in your local time (NZDT?), the time in UTC will remain the same. I guess you understood what I was saying though? Again, thank you for replying. Dustin (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: Actually I just remembered about the time differences (I always get confused). UTC and NZT are the same, however the NZDT moves forward 1hr. So UTC-> NZT = 0021Z-> 1221NZT, and UTC-> NZDT = 0021-> 1321Z. I will keep this here just in case I did it wrong. -- Typhoon2013 00:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

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

• On the 2015 Pacific typhoon season page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you translate vi:Bão Cecil (1985) from Vietnamese to English? In Vietnamese Wikipedia, I write it to a featured article. CVQT (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@CVQT: I am not Vietnamese and don't speak it but I think Bao Cecil is Typhoon Cecil. -- Typhoon2013 08:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You can use the Google Translate CVQT (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have noticed that you always use the W longitude and mbar for new tropical depressions in the Pacific typhoon season article. Please check before posting, as I have been feeling very annoying that I have to edit those issues from you all the time.

|lat=11.0|N|lon=162.8|W
|pressure= 1004 [[mbar]] (29.65 [[inHg]])

I do not want to see something like this from you in the future. -- Meow 08:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Meow: Sorry. It's because I have a copy of the code of the infobox so it would be easier for me to put if there's a new storm, but I somehow put W instead of E. I'll fix it. Thanks for reminding me. -- Typhoon2013 08:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Meow: Wait though. What is the difference between hPa and mbar? However I don't mind what to use but I thought I did remember putting/seeing mbar in the infobox. -- Typhoon2013 09:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: hPa and mbar are actually the same, but hPa is the standard unit for most of members of the Typhoon Committee. The infobox used to adopt hPa for typhoon articles, but I do not know why it becomes mbar now. -- Meow 09:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I would rather not see you use the current storm information infobox in the SPAC, as its useless and we are not a weather forecast agency. I also note that we are ongetting warnings every 12 hours rather than 6.Jason Rees (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I do not understand why you wrote the completely different summaries for recent typhoons such as Dujuan and Koppu. You can just copy, paste and then simplify an independent article into a minimal summary, but what I have seen are too long and containing some unnecessary contents. Why would you choose to spend more time on this? -- Meow 12:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

• On the 2015 Pacific typhoon season page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help) and a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

They're on Talk:2015 Pacific typhoon season/September because the INVEST first appeared in September.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 10:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Typhoon2013, I don't know if you know, but there are many empty sections in 1995 Pacific typhoon season. I have found this source: http://www.hko.gov.hk/publica/tc/tc1995.pdf which will help you fill out a lot of the sections. It would be great if you could fill them out when you have time. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Typhoon2013, I am sending another message to you because I have seen that you have been really active lately and I want this to go to you as a notification. As I said earlier, 1995 Pacific typhoon season article is incomplete and I need your help to fill it. Please reply quickly either here or on my talk page. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

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

• On the 2015 Pacific typhoon season page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

My view is that while the May Tropical Low was not monitored as a tropical depression by the FMS, it should still be mentioned in Other Systems since BoM is an official warning centre for the region the low operated in. For the record I will be adding the one currently active per the BoM to the Other Systems section.Jason Rees (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Oswalds replacement name was Osamu but that has been removed, I presume because off. Anyway I do not know which names are retired out of Rubina, Lam, Marcia and Isobel, but i can make a pretty informed guess that its only Lam and Marcia that are actually retired. However, we should keep the names on Tropical cyclone naming until the WMO Committee meets later this year to decide on the names retired as they are liable to reject any of the retirement candidates.Jason Rees (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I have indicated on the list which names are scheduled for replacement and have listed that Lando is going to be retired. I am thinking about taking the list to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates soon, and it would be great if you would be a co-nominator on it since you have the most edits to it.Jason Rees (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyway just have a think about the FLC stuff and get back to me - Both @Hurricanehink: and I feel you would really benefit from the experience.Jason Rees (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: So you want me to start a talk thing to make the article in FL? Ok sure, I would love to help. However I might start sometime this week if I'm available because I am busy at other things if that's ok for you guys. Also as it says in my user page, I rarely edit (atm) because there are no active tropical cyclones. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I will set it up when its ready and invite you to co-nominate it with me. We will then receive various comments on what the article needs to be considered a featured list and are expected to resolve them satisfactorily before it is promoted. I will expect you to contribute and help resolve the comments.Jason Rees (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Ok since I promised somewhere this week, I'll start later. Also since it's my first time, what do I need to do? Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Typhoon2013, I didn't just change the track image. I added and updated information. And for the track, the image that is there is old, so could you please update the image and put back my edits? Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have undid your revision but put back the old image. See, that image is 1 day old, so I put the file name of the new image, but all that came was a blank file. So could you please explain to me how to put images on Wikipedia? Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. For hurricanes (Central/Eastern Pacific and Atlantic), please wait for the NHC to release its advisory. They often differ from best track. For example, you entered the best-track value of 95 knots. The advisory says 100. This is acceptable in other basins, but not these.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: So despite you do this as well, as in updating infobox from trackfiles as well, the only article we don't need to do is both the EPac or CPac? Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't do this in any of those three basins. I do it in other basins because the JTWC always follows what the best track says. Not so for NHC or CPHC.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought that Sandra didn't do much at all but break a couple records. My apologies. I just want to help improve Wikipedia. HurricaneGonzalo (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi there,

Please don't recreate the 2016 season articles until we have some non-generic information, likely in the form of the first seasonal forecasts. Please see WP:CRYSTAL, point #2. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Juliancolton: Thank you and sorry that I forgot about the "Wiki is not a crystal ball" thing, I completely forgot about it. Someone should've told me this one to two years ago when I made the 2014 and 2015 seasons really early as Nov 2013 and 2014. However, according to some users, the 2016 PTS article should be created just days before the start of 2016 because that basin never ends FYI. -- Typhoon2013 04:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. If you are going to make edits to it, at least preserve the references there, since you are basically trying to convey the same information.

Also, please make sure the grammar you use is correct. The reason why I keep having issue with this is that it has not improved over time, which is why I am not sure you are making an effort to improve. Again, whenever you are unsure of how to write a sentence, ask another editor. Do not make assumptions.

In any case, I think such a detailed summary belongs in the seasonal summary section instead. Note that the chronological summary portion of the 2014 season's article's lead only contains a very brief summary of the season.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

This infobox is currently being used in an article, so please do not make major changes without testing them first. E.g. make a copy of it in your sandbox and check how it looks in another sandbox page. Your latest edit has caused some errors on the article. I would suggest that if you don't plan on fixing it pretty soon, to revert the changes and continue test editing it until a stable version is ready. Jolly Ω Janner 03:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Typhoon2013, while I know the numbers do make the 1997-98 SPAC season the most active on record - I do not like calling it the most active without a proper source saying so. On a side note I am also not a fan of including Violet in the 95/96 SPAC season since it was in and out within a day.Jason Rees (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If you wish there are a couple of minor jobs that need doing at some point. These include making sure List of Historical tropical cyclone names has links to every single season and all the South Pacific tropical cyclone seasons are covered by buttons.Jason Rees (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you could bring 1992-93 SPAC buttons up to scratch when you get a moment please.Jason Rees (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no real need to include the warning centre these days as it doesn't do anything. The Paramater was manily created when we used to record which warning center it was who warned on systems like for instance Bakung.Jason Rees (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Jason Rees (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

May I ask where you have consensus for not having the current infobox in a typhoon season article for an active storm?--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Current infobox. That's not called a "consensus".--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Typhoon2013, I just wanted to stop by and wish you a very Merry Christmas and all the best for 2016. Me and other older editors value your contributions to the current storm articles, though I personally wish you would add a tropical low as soon as you see the words Tropical Low in BoM's TWO's.Jason Rees (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Typhoon 2013. Welcome back to Wikipedia! I just started browsing through your talk page archives for fun today and I think I found a problem. In Archive 2, all the discussions up to April 13, 2015 were supposed to come there, but even present discussions (December 2015) are going there. Then your normal talk page is Archive 3. So on your normal talk page, I see at the top a note that is saying that this page is only an archive for previous discussions. I made an edit to move all the discussions dated after April 13, 2015 to Archive 3 when I encountered that problem. So I reverted my edit and decided to talk to you. Could you tell me what's going on? Maybe we could fix the problem. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@73.223.175.207: Hi. I should've fixed this several days ago but just to be aware that I was on holiday, that's the reason why I could not edit in wiki. Yes, my talk page is a mess and thanks for your help, I can handle this. This is because a bot used to archive my talk messages, but now I put a code in my talk pages so no bots would archive them. But I may put him back soon. -- Typhoon2013 05:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I don't understand what is happening. You said that you removed the bot from archiving your talk page. But when I looked in the edit history, I saw that Lowercase sigmabot III archived 2 discussions to Archive 2 of your talk pages. Didn't you remove the code? In order to fix the talk pages I will need you to remove it. Archive 2 is getting too big.

So after some thinking I decided that you need to create a page called User talk:Typhoon2013/Archive3. There we can move all the discussions dated after April 13. (It looks like your normal talk page is the same as the Archive 3. It shouldn't be like that.) Also please delete the page you created called User:Typhoon2013/Archive1 as it is a copy of User talk:Typhoon2013/Archive1 and is not needed. It must have been created by accident. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@73.223.175.207: First of all, why are we talking about this. It is my (or a bot's job) to this not someone else since this is my user and talk page (otherwise, if you or someone is going to leave me a message or award). Second, I can fix this. But thanks for mentioning Archive 2 for me. Yes I will figure something out. -- Typhoon2013 00:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, since I had nothing better to on Wikipedia I decided to help you fix that talk page problem. (I like helping people.) It's good the job got mostly done. Only if you could do one last thing and delete User:Typhoon2013/Archive1 (reason given in my above comment) it would be great. Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I have to still bother you, but could you quickly put an {{db-u1}} template on User:Typhoon2013/Archive1 so that I can ask an admin like Cyclonebiskit to delete it? Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Pardon the revert, misunderstood your edit summary. Noticed that you meant it to mean 1995 after seeing the edit to that article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: No, no sorry. It was me. I accidentally type 'now' instead of 'not'. I am a fast typer here as well and you may see some mistakes so keep that in mind. :) -- Typhoon2013 09:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have manually reverted your upload as the image you uploaded for 07F was the wrong storm. According to RSMC Nadi the storm was near 18.4 S 177.7 E at 0500Z on Jan 1. The image you uploaded was centered near 29.7 S 166.4 E which is nowhere near the center described by RSMC Nadi. I have since replaced the image with the one I captured earlier.Damien4794 (talk) 09:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Damien4794: Sorry. Does that mean I have 06F's image? Or is the image I uploaded is just a low? -- Typhoon2013 10:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013:That's probably not 06F but some extratropical low in the AOR of Wellington. However, I remember as I was tracking these storms 05F (precursor to Ula) and 06F were very close to each other (within 2 or 3 degrees). It is crucial not to get these storms confused. For my initial image of 06F I had taken TWOs from Nadi (now already deleted from the gwydir archives) and tried to calculate its position using some math and centered it accurately on the storm center. For your part, try not to upload or enhance these images because the storm you captured for 06F might just as well be the precursor to Ula. It is now very difficult to distinguish them (05F and 06F) since the TWOs from last year are not easily accessible, and I have yet to verify that (your 06F image) it is indeed 06F. For 07F … yes that's 07F all right. Good job! But please verify and double check these storms whenever you are uploading images of them so that you do not confuse them.Damien4794 (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015–16 Australian region cyclone season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darwin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I have found data for all 3 storms, though it's from rather a ragbag of sources. The normal NRL data dump wasn't carrying TRACKFILEs at the time (it's working OK now). Archived bulletins are listed on the talk page.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 18:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Keith Edkins: That's alright, and thank you so much! You should know that the BoM is stupid when tracking TLs. -- Typhoon2013 20:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You reported me. I literally went to the page and the information was near 24 hour out of date. It had a notification on it saying that the information was out of date. So, I gathered the information that I could find, at the time, Meteo Frances site was down so I couldnt put down everything. So i put down unknown. If you would care to explain how that is vadalism, id be delighted because I was updating old information from the small amount of information I had, at least it was more current than what was on there. --INFOWeather1 ( Talk ) 1:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

You always use W for the Eastern Hemisphere in Wikipedia. -- Meow 07:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Meow: Sorry it's a bit confusing as you use W for E. Hem and the other. -- Typhoon2013 07:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I meant the longitude. Why you always use W for a location that is actually E? TC Stan is an example. -- Meow 07:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fun Cake (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Before you ask I RMd both systems due to a lack of evidence that they were Tropical Lows. However, Ive subsquently discovered TCWC Brisbanes Outlook for today and since the system is now in Aus you may add it back in. The Perth System stays out though as we have no evidence that it was anyghing more than a weak low. Regards :).Jason Rees (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Jason Rees (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: As I said before, I just wanted to discover about BoM's TLs more and why some aren't discovered with identifiers. Let's just wait for Tatiana or our next designated low (which is expected to form by tomorrow from TCWC Perth) and see what happens. If the next low is given the identifier of 11U, then the TL you rm (the Feb 5 low) and the current low should be 09U and 10U. But as of now, they are just lows. -- Typhoon2013 05:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

To follow up on last weeks conversation both of Tait and Uriah TCRs have been released and both systems formed on the 9th. As a result the Aus Region article has been updated to reflect this.Jason Rees (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Cough - 10U=Tait 11U=Winston (Prob) 12U=Unnamed TL. Also can you stop directly citing Ketihs site but instead webcite some of the bulletins and place them on the talk page please.Jason Rees (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: It's pretty weird, but I saw the sources from Meow and states that Winston re-generated into a TL on the 3rd. Also there was a weak TL from 14-16 Feb. -- Typhoon2013 19:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said my money is on it being Winston, since BoM had to issue formal warnings on it for Norfolk Island and it was expected to reintensify in the Aus region before it did. However, we are just guessing here and if you can prove that Perth reported that a weak tropical low existed then I will allow it to be mentioned in the article. Also since Reunion did not issue any warnings on 12U I would suggest removing the basin crossing crap.Jason Rees (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Do we add in weak tropical lows? I know we don't put lows in the article, since they are not tropical. I am sorry that I didn't updated or add the sources to the Feb TL ASAP. If I added them early, I would've added the sources, but now I could not find them. Also true, MFR didn't continue tracking 12U, so therefore we don't need to mention the links to the 2015-16 SWio article. - Typhoon2013 02:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

We will add in weak tropical lows when we have a source telling us that they were a weak tropical low. Hopefully, for the tropical low that you are on about, @Keith Edkins: will be able to recover the Perth TWO's that talk about this system. Once they have been seen I will look at the wording used and then add it in if needs be.Jason Rees (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)