User talk:2003 LN6

The redirect 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 13 § 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456 until a consensus is reached. Renerpho (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, I have noticed that you have recently reverted my edits on the page leafcutter ant. The problem with that page is that it is quite outdated, and needs extensive restructuring after Amoimyrmex was designated back in 2020 as a third genus of leafcutter ants. I plan to update the article in the coming days to fit this change. Thank you! Sources: [1] [2]. 2003 LN 6 04:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, thanks for discussing. As I wrote just now in my edit comment, which it does not seem that you read, "rv, you can't "update" an article by adding "new" and wholly uncited materials to the lead: it's just a summary of the article. Add what you want to the article body, cited to WP:RS, then (if need be) adjust the lead to match". I'm happy to stand by that. If the article is "outdated", then the place to update it is the article body, not the lead. Your edit immediately reduced the quality of the article in two ways: by making the lead inconsistent with the body, and by introducing an uncited claim. That is, to be clear about it, the wrong direction — worse not better. If you plan to do something, make your plans, find your sources, read WP:V and WP:CITE and WP:RS (core policies all of them), then update the article properly, and everybody will thank you for it. As for your hasty edit, it was correctly reverted, with a correct and fully explanatory edit comment. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

@Chiswick Chap Fixed. Thank you. 2003 LN 6 05:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Re: [3] [4] and a few others, per Template:Talk header#Should this be added to every talk page?, "This template does not need to be placed on every talk page, and should not be indiscriminately added to talk pages." If you do find a page worthy of {{Talk header }}, please place it according to Wikipedia:Talk page layout#Lead (bannerspace). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Hey! Could you translate the Chinese in this Tropical Cyclone Report by the Central Weather Administration and add the info here if you have time? Tavantius (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stigmatomma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lithomyrmex.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Stop putting 1 min winds without any TC number by JTWC. This is unofficial and illegal. MAS0802 06:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello @MAS0802: I would like to ask: Why should there be no 1-minute peak sustained winds for non-numbered storms? The track data which is made by the JTWC should be, in my opinion, just as valid a source for determining tropical cyclone 1-minute intensity as it comes from the same agency and is measured in the same way as numbered systems. Therefore, I believe that I should be able to use this as a source to obtain peak 1-minute wind speeds for unnumbered systems. 2003 LN 6 14:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi 2003 LN6: I hear your feedback about the 1-min peak sustained winds. I'm just want to give you some advice. Firstly, I know unnumbered systems is able to count by JTWC. But the question is, is this unnumbered systems upgraded by JTWC (TD or TS)? Although unnumbered systems is reaching 30 knots or above, you still need waiting the official reports by JTWC, you cannot writing down before JTWC is upgrading the system except another situation. For example, JTWC think this system is transitioned to a STD or STS. That is another situation without any measured by JTWC.

Secondly, unnumbered systems is still named "Invest", that means it is not yet certain to be upgraded by JTWC. For instance, that is 3 levels of systems, "Low", "Medium" and "High". If this system has a high probability of forming a tropical cyclone. JTWC will issued it a TCFA (Tropical Cyclone Formation Alert). JTWC will determine about this system will become a tropical cyclone or cancel the warning.

Lastly, you can use any official source to update the system after JTWC official reports is out.

That's my advice, hope you understand what I mean in this post.

Have a great day, Bye! MAS0802 17:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@MAS0802: The systems which are never numbered will never be released in post-season analysis tracks. Therefore, the current Invest track data is the only source for 1-minute wind for these unnumbered systems. So, the two possible solutions are either to leave all of them blank or to use the 1-minute winds in the track data as there is no other source I know of for 1-minute winds for these systems, so I prefer providing more information. Also, concerning the system's status, the track data suggests that they are in fact tropical depressions. Thank you! 2003 LN 6 17:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]