Jump to content

User talk:Hurricanehink: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
EdwardsBot (talk | contribs)
354,693 edits
Line 635: Line 635:
</div>
</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0322 -->
<!-- EdwardsBot 0322 -->
== subtropical cyclone ==
That guy is clearly not willing to talk. He just keeps vandalizing by plausible misinformation to articles (minor alteration of facts), which is categorized under sneaky vandalism. [[Special:Contributions/165.125.180.10|165.125.180.10]] ([[User talk:165.125.180.10|talk]]) 02:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:29, 17 August 2012


Please click here to leave me a new message.

Hurricane Flora?

I've been reading this article, hoping to make some article out of it. On the last para, it syays Palmer Stadium was ravaged by Hurricane Flora durign a november 1950 game. Can;t find mention of a '50 Flroa anywhere else. Help please? Buggie111 (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Finally got to the September 1962 TD revision

It took a while. I tried to hunt down the original Excel file, which disappeared. I appended the readings from that publication to the plot from the former spreadsheet. Changes were quite small. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Helen

Hi,

The rain accumulation estimation has nothing to do with the Doppler capabilities of a weather radar. This is totally a reflectivity issue. The use of "Doppler radar", mainly in US, is a mistake that imply that Doppler radar are equivalent to weather radar. Doppler radar is a category of radars with continuous waves or discrete pulse that are used in different systems ranging front fighter aircraft to police radar gunto estimate the speed of targets. In the case of meteorology, this is just an extra function added to the reflectivity of conventional radar. To link the accumulation of rain to Doppler radar is thus totally passing beside the point.

If you absolutely want to put Doppler in the link, do Doppler weather radar or Pulse-Doppler weather radar.

Pierre cb (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. This is an easy mistake as the term "Doppler radar" is used so often by the media. Pierre cb (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation Blog Post on WikiCup

Hi,

My name is Elaine and I'm a communications intern with the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. I'm working on a post about the WikiCup for the Foundation blog [1]. Since you are the winner of the 2011 WikiCup, I would love to do a short interview with you either by phone, Skype, or email to ask you a few quick questions. Let me know if you're interested! You can reach me at communicationsintern@wikimedia.org.

Thanks,

Elaine CommIntern (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

Talkback

Hello, Hurricanehink. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Cold wave of January 1977.
Message added 02:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger One ping only 02:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to Wiki-Gangs of New York @ NYPL on April 21!

Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library
Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Wikipedia meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch.
  • Venue: Stephen A. Schwarzman Building (NYPL Main Branch), Margaret Liebman Berger Forum (Room 227).
  • Directions: Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street.
  • Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time)

The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required!

Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

Hi. When you recently edited Tropical Storm Debby (1994), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Culebra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

GAN

Hey, no worries. I was actually going to ask today, do you want me to just do a quick copyedit myself, or post a bunch of copyediting suggestions on the review page? Neither is too much trouble. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll take care of all the stuff that wouldn't change the meaning of what's written, and put the rest on the GA review page. I'll have that all worked up within 24 hours, is that ok? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable! :) Thanks for the reminder. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind a bit of quid pro quo, I've got Andromeda (constellation) up for GAN (apparently the only constellation article close to GA. That makes me sad.) I'd be happy to review Lenny! I'll go print it out now. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the GAN review. I'm about halfway through Lenny, so I'll get to your comments on Andromeda and post mine on Lenny after I get home (in about 5-6 hours). Sound good? Keilana|Parlez ici 22:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USRD WikiProject Newsletter, Spring 2012

Volume 5, Issue 2 • Spring 2012 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
—Imzadi 1979 → 00:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

Andromeda and kittens

Two of my favorite things - GAs about constellations and kittens! Thanks for the excellent review. Drop me a line if you ever need anything! Keilana|Parlez ici 00:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nyan cat is so cute! It's good to be back and writing content. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 01:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I stayed away for a few years but just couldn't resist a new pet project. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth could you tell? I thought I was being subtle. But yes, I noticed that all of the constellation articles were complete crap...not a single one out of 88 had passed any kind of formal review. That's sad. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God, 1 down, 87 to go. In that case, I may hit you up for a review or two. (BTW, I haven't forgotten about Lenny or Debby. I'll have those comments up for you in a little bit). Keilana|Parlez ici 01:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's excellent! I definitely can't go it alone though. Unfortunately WikiProject Constellations is dead as a doornail. Ah well, it's not like I have much to do anyways. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, I think I'll stick a note on the astronomy project's talk page. Maybe something will come of that? Keilana|Parlez ici 03:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I'll run across someone in my editing travels. Thanks so much for your help! Good luck with that epic featured topic! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 03:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I figured too. There's no deadline, so I don't think there's any harm in just letting it sit. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox hurricane Impact

Hello, Hink. I just think, that this is not a good idea. Pittily it was decided with a few comments only and aside you none of those I ever saw in the WPTC. In this there are, IMO, two different questions to desolve:

  1. whether the impact article needs an infobox at all
  2. if they need what should be included into this infobox.

Independently on those two questions those articles should not have the same infobox like the main article. The Infobox hurricane is made for article about hurricanes. An arcticle about the effects of Hurricane XY isn't an article about a hurricane. You certainly won't put the Infobox settlement in the History of Atlanta article. So why would you place the Infobox hurricane in the Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans?

And then, the collection of infoboxes in all the hurricane articles are a database on their own. At the last dump EN Wikipedia had 483 articles using the Template:Infobox hurricane, and this is a table of all parameters used in the articles (wether they exist in the template proper or not). And those are the first 30 of them. Can you imagine what the merging and using Template:Infobox hurricane within the effects articles series will do with the value of the database, here in it's entirety?

I'm indifferent, wether the effects articles series does need an infobox of all, but I am sure that we must not use Template:Infobox hurricane in those articles ever. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's all about redundancy, isn't it? Why we should include the hurricane infobox in an sub-article on a specific storm again, if it already is included in the main article? Let's take Katrina with three? four? different effects articles? In each of them? I don't know any other example in the WP in which sub-articles get the infobox from the main article. Putting the IB from Hurricane Katrina into Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans is actually the same as would be putting the IB from New York City into the article on the Upper West Side as well. Would you do the latter? The more we discuss on it the more I think those infoboxes should be dropped from the effects articles series completely. --Matthiasb (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the template is the same then the content will be the same and therefor is unneeded as I tried to explain with my NYC-UWS example. And, if the infobox is used within the effects articles series then the value of the hurricane infobox database (see above) is hampered because then the same entry is included twice or even more times. The problem isn't in the redundancy between both templates, the problem is the redundancy of the content of the infobox within the Hurricane Katrina and Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and the wrong use at all. Could you perhaps explain why the latter article should infcude the Hurricane Katrina infobox? The day when Katrina formed and that it affected other areas before, even the satellite image, even the peak intensity is of no interest within Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. It's just creating redundancy and kind of spamming an article with information unnecessary within the specific context. However I guess you're not understanding what actually I want to say and I am not really sure wether it's because of my Pidgin English or because of dissenting opionions. Sorry if I am confusing you. --Matthiasb (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Trying another approach... If the effects articles series needs an infobox then it needs to include values describing the effects of the storm. How many people where affected. When where they affected. How much was insured damage. Which aid agencies got in. How many people have been evacuated. Was it a mandatory evac. Wether there have been electricity of communication outages. In which time the area was affected (that's not when the storm formed and dissipated). What is not needed from the Infobox hurricane: satellite image, formed, dissipated, peak intensity – those are informations of no interest for the effects article. Template:Infobox hurricane is not useful in effect articles. --Matthiasb (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think the discussion is heated or even lame. I only observe that you do not refer to any of the reasons I mentioned above, and you're constantly repeating the one issue, that one infobox redudant to the other. But that is not and never was my point. That's quite disappointing and frustrating, you know, but what the matter.
For shorten this: No. I don't need an infobox for the effects article series. I just don't want the normal hurricane infobox used in the effects article because of that articles do not describe hurricanes. Stop. And readers may find this confusing, especially if It's not like the effects template would include the exact same info as the regular hurricane one. Nice. People see the infobox in the New Orleans article and soon wrong numbers will flow around in the wild. Am I really the only who thinks that this will not work out good? Let's end this discussion here. Let us rather clean up the mess in a year or two. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

Hurricane Lenny copy edit request

I saw that you put up a copy edit request for this article back in January, but that it's already moving through the FAC process, and looks to be close to passing. It also looks like someone else did a lot of copy editing of the article at the end of January. Would you still like someone from WP:GOCE to copy edit the article, or would it be okay to remove it from the requests list? —Torchiest talkedits 19:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

Query

I saw you at the featured topic board, and wanted to ask you something. I am currently working on the article Ra.One, and its aiming for an FA. I had to cut down on the article's content a lot so as to make the article concise, hence allowing me to make a number of daughter articles such as Principal photography of Ra.One, Post-production of Ra.One, Marketing of Ra.One and Economics of Ra.One; not to mention the already-existing daughter articles Soundtrack of Ra.One and List of accolades received by Ra.One. I was wondering whether this would be applicable for a good/featured topic after I can get them to GA/FA status. Something like this :-

edit | discuss
Ra.One
7 articles
Principal photography of Ra.One
Post-production of Ra.One
Soundtrack of Ra.One
Marketing of Ra.One
Economics of Ra.One
List of accolades received by Ra.One

Would this be a valid topic candidate? Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Could you also explain to me about the details of making a book out of these articles? i;m rather fascinated with this aspect. Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, all those articles had been part of the main article. It was only on FAC insistence that they were split :P. Yes, it does seem a lot, but I guess its just because there so much information regarding this film. Thanks for the information :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

Main page appearance: Hurricane John (2006)

This is a note to let the main editors of Hurricane John (2006) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 25, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 25, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Hurricane John

Hurricane John was the eleventh named storm, seventh hurricane, and fifth major hurricane of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season. Hurricane John developed on August 28 from a tropical wave to the south of Mexico. Favorable conditions allowed the storm to intensify quickly, and it attained peak winds of 135 mph (215 km/h) on August 30. Eyewall replacement cycles and land interaction with western Mexico weakened the hurricane, and John made landfall on southeastern Baja California Sur with winds of 110 mph (180 km/h) on September 1. It slowly weakened as it moved northwestward through the Baja California peninsula, and dissipated on September 4. The hurricane threatened large portions of the western coastline of Mexico, resulting in the evacuation of tens of thousands of people. In coastal portions of western Mexico, strong winds downed trees, while heavy rain resulted in mudslides. Hurricane John caused moderate damage on the Baja California peninsula, including the destruction of more than 200 houses and thousands of flimsy shacks. The hurricane killed five people in Mexico, and damage totaled $663 million (2006 MXN, $60.8 million 2006 USD). (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

thinking on hurricanes
Thank you for expanding our knowledge of hurricanes, adding storms to the Main page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

Beryl rainfall graphics & page

The rain is just ending in NC. I have to wait for the COOP reports to come in tomorrow, which won't be in an ingestable format until late afternoon tomorrow. The rainfall spreadsheet should be complete enough to create graphics on Friday, with the webpage created on Saturday. That's the goal anyway. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Tracks

It was from the India Met Dept RSMC Page. As you suggested, i'll make the changes. I'll let you decide if you want to keep or not, when a new, legit version is ready.

Thanks for the eye-opener :)

Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the image is ready, didn't take long to change it.

Well i couldn't add more lines to EPAC as the source has some other data. Here is the source. Let me know for any changes. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what i'll do is downgrade the number of lines from four to two, one each for the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal. That seems fair for me. Just let me know your view Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes its true that every TC has a unique track, but for an average person, he would like to know where they form and where they usually go. This is not achieved by a simple Basin map. An average track map will fulfill the same. Hope you get what i want to say. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, they look similar too, ill add an extra arrow for EPAC, as the map shows, pointing towards the west pacific. Similarly reduce the NIO arrows to two. Will even add one more in the Madagascar area, and one in the eastern Australian Region. Basically i'll combine both. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A good question. Most probably the IMD image would be copyrighted. I will recreate the NOAA version only, since it falls in public domain. Will have it ready by tomorrow. Thanks for your support.Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll modify the arrows as the NOAA version shows. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The NOAA Image is very small, i am recreating it in Scalable Vector Garphics (SVG), which allows the user to render the image to any size he wants. As simple as that. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we all expect quality images in Wikipedia, right? Even if we upload the NOAA version, it will soon be converted into an SVG by someone else. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado Source

Here you go Hink. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tropical Storm Beryl (2012)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Hurricanehink. You have new messages at Tatiraju.rishabh's talk page.
Message added 17:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
P Jason Rees (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1985 Puerto Rico floods GA review

Hi Hurricanehink, I've posted some comments for this article's GA review. All minor stuff, the article looks pretty good overall. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've passed the article, congratulations. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Beryl

I noticed that too, you know! How stupid am i? I must have gotten Bret, which i was trying to edit, gotten confused with Beryl. Plmnji (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

Rainfall from storms prior to 1956

There is a techinical memorandum from 1956 detailing tropical cyclone rainfall for the United States on a case-by-case basis back to 1899. I don't know if it's been scanned online or not since I haven't tried searching for it online in over 10 years. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hurricane Bud (2012)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hurricanes and tropical cyclones

Hi Hurricane,

Great work with getting all those tropical-cyclone-related articles up to featured status! I am concerned about the titles of three central articles that fall within the scope of tropical cyclones and I was hoping that you would engage in discussion with me about them. The three articles are North Atlantic tropical cyclone, Pacific hurricane, and Typhoon. As far as I can tell from the North Atlantic tropical cyclone article, Atlantic tropical cyclones sometimes form in the southern hemisphere, so to call the article "North Atlantic" is to make it too specific, even if the vast majority form in the northern hemisphere. Similarly, the Tropical cyclone article tells me that hurricanes and typhoons are only one level of intensity of tropical cyclones, so the titles "Pacific hurricane" and "Typhoon" seem to be too specific to be the Pacific analogues of the North Atlantic tropical cyclone article. In the interest of consistency of scope across articles, I would like to see North Atlantic tropical cyclone, Pacific hurricane, and Typhoon be moved to Atlantic tropical cyclone, Eastern Pacific tropical cyclone, and Western Pacific tropical cyclone respectively. I recognize that you have more background in this subject than I do, so I would be grateful for your help in working out these issues.

Neelix (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hurricane,
Article titles are a specific passion of mine on Wikipedia; I think they are one of the most important elements of an article, partly because they demonstrate their connection to the other articles on Wikipedia and partly because they are so easily and subtlely distorted by POV in ways that have major implications for article content. I am mostly interested in organization on Wikipedia, so I do a lot of work with article titles, navboxes, and hatnotes. I'm also very active at Today's featured list and I'm trying to get List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States up on the main page. Feel free to contribute to the discussion here.
Neelix (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hurricane,
Thanks for the comments on List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States! I don't know if your meteorological interests extend to snow, but if they do, your comments would be welcome here as well.
Neelix (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hurricane,
Oh right. You did a good job on it! Hopefully, it will make it to the main page.
Neelix (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

Oy

The Mos is quite clear that the dates have to be in the same format throughout the article, which is backed up by the numerous amount of people going around and changing the dates and alignign them to which ever is the preferred format in the article. Also i note that there is a typo in the first paragraph which i had corrected.Jason Rees (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It must be in the MoS as otherwise i doubt the script i use would be removing them, I cant be asked to go through it right now though as im going through the rainfall. I also note though that there was a lot more to my edit then just removing the &nbsps, i alligned all of the dates and corrected a couple of typos.Jason Rees (talk) 03:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was no need for you to RV in the first place by just stating that "isn't any cleaner", when it is a lot cleaner than it was as all of the dates were spelled out properly and in to the same format and i had corrected a typo or two. As for which policy it is, there must be something on it in the MoS since the whole script is built around maintaining the standards of the MoS.Jason Rees (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The &nbsps; are removed by the script because they are not useful for dates and just clutter the place up (except when editors want to stop a line feed by default).Jason Rees (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but for dates it doest do it and PS: its not my opinion its the script editors.Jason Rees (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

Re:Hey

Meh, there has been a lot of drama in my life, both offline and online. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Northeast Pacific hurricane

Hi Hurricane,

I have started a move discussion here in order to open the topic to the broader community. Your comments there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

sorry!

re GAN Typhoon Chataan

Hi,

I've reviewed your nomination and the article nicely done. I left some comments at [[ Talk:Typhoon Chataan/GA1. Really, just one question.

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category 6 hurricane

There is an ongoing discussion at List of Category 6 Atlantic hurricanes as to whether this page should be kept or redirected to List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. Your input on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. United States Man (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re GAN 1933 Trinidad hurricane

Hi,

Did leave a few comments (minor) at Talk:1933 Trinidad hurricane/GA1

On another note, could you explain to me how you find those old google newspaper articles?

MathewTownsend (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

Happy Birthday

Happy Birthday
Happy, Birthday, hink. here is your present. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Happy Birthday Hink!
Happy Birthday Hink. Here, have some cake. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

Snow in Florida

Hi Hurricane,

Thanks for all the comments in the List of wettest tropical cyclones in the United States TFL discussion. I believe all of your concerns have been addressed; if you would comment there to let us know whether or not there is more work required, it would be greatly appreciated. Some concerns have been raised at the Snow in Florida TFL discussion as well; if you have time, your help in addressing those concerns would be appreciated as well. Specifically, I do not know how to address the concern regarding the lead graph, and I feel as though you are probably more qualified to extend the lead than I am.

Neelix (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

Talkback

Hello, Hurricanehink. You have new messages at Earth100's talk page.
Message added 28 July 2012. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hurricane Andrew Statistics section

Hello Hurricanehink, I noticed that the Statistics section was removed from the WIkipedia page on June 1. That section contained my contributions to research on Hurricane Andrew, and fixed some errors (e.g. Clemson University did not conduct the Perrine anemometer wind tunnel tests). I spent four years of research on Hurricane Andrew, leading to two peer-reviewed papers which were cited in that section. Rather than edit the page again myself, it would be great if you could reinstate that material. It could be contained in the section on Meteorology if there was a desire to remove material in the statistics section. You can contact me at Mark.Powell@noaa.gov if you have any questions.

My web page is: www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Powell/index.html

Mark Powell Markdpowell (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) After looking at the difs: some of the bits that you wrote could go back in, but you would need to talk to User:12george1 who is the person trying to get the article up to scratch, to see why he removed the section.Jason Rees (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

Your comments at the Istanbul FAC

I don't know how much you've been following the Istanbul FAC, but I believe I've responded to all of your comments there. -- tariqabjotu 20:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comments at the Istanbul FAC

Now that the candidacy is closed, as should have been expected (and, frankly, was expected by me when I penned the two offending comments on the FAC), I would like to take the time to apologize for my comments directed at you in the Istanbul FAC. Indeed, I can imagine the "few hours" you noted you spent reviewing the article was an understatement, given the article's immense length, and for me to use words suggesting I found your comments "nonsense" or "inane" was inappropriate and unfair, especially given -- as I did notice well before my remarks -- you did say you were overall pleased with the article. Reviewers there should never have to be subjected to such hostility, and I am truly saddened that I contributed to your reluctance to participate in future FACs (and that this is not the first issue like this you've run into at the FAC).

In the interest of being honest, rather than simply angling for forgiveness, I will say that even now, I still disagree with the points that I kept unaddressed (although, as you point out, I did not notice that the 17,000 figure should have been replaced with 18,000). But, of course, my approach of choosing to outright ignore you was inappropriate and immature. I could come up with a few excuses -- it was late at night, I really wasn't expecting to deal with so many comments late in the FAC, blah, blah -- but the real explanation is just that my disagreement with you and bewilderment with some of the issues you had had become so strong that my judgment was clouded. Okay, that sounded like an excuse as well, but what I mean is, instead of commenting in the heat of the moment, I should have taken a step back, gotten a good night's sleep, and waited before expressing how I felt. And, as Mitch suggested, the more appropriate course of action would have been to just state that I would like a second opinion before modifying content I otherwise felt didn't need to be modified.

Not trying to change the subject, after getting that night's sleep, rethinking the matter, and seeing the conclusion I directly created, I see that my remarks were not only inconsiderate to you, but to the process as a whole (as stated by Graham) and to the other editors who have contributed to the article in some way over the years. I presume that your disdain for my outburst does not change your opinion about the article itself, and so for it to fail to gain featured status because of what ultimately were my inane remarks is not fair to these other editors either. For that reason, at some point, I would like to either reinstate the existing FAC -- sans the offending remarks, of course -- or otherwise start a second FAC. However (or nevertheless), I would prefer that you let me know or decide when you feel it's acceptable for me to do that -- even if it's never.

But most importantly, I hope that at some point, and I don't necessarily expect now, you'll forgive me for my comments at the FAC. -- tariqabjotu 02:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kind post, and I very much forgive you. The unfortunate things about arguments on Wikipedia is that they're simply through text (so wording can becoming amplified in our head) and that they are time-delayed (so that you might not see something I wrote until hours later, and I might not be able to reply back until hours after that). In my seven years on Wikipedia, I've had several little spats between myself and another editor, and all of them ended amicably whenever the other editor was a fairly prolific article-writer.
Personally, I blame you being on vacation :P I'll admit, if I had a FAC that was up for a while, and then when I was on vacation I got a ton of comments (some of which I disagreed with), I might be a little annoyed too. To be honest, I was a little facetious when I said I wouldn't be continuing to participate on future FAC's. I mostly just said that to mimic what you said, and so I do apologize and take back those remarks. I've retired Wiki twice, gone on several Wiki breaks, and gone through a lot of other stuff here on Wiki, so don't worry, you're not going to be the cause of me stopping FAC reviewing. That's fine if you disagree with some of my comments - it's only one user's comments out of millions. If you do put Istanbul up for FAC again, either some of those comments will come up again, or no one will care about them, in which case, hopefully no significant harm done. I do suggest you put it back up for FAC at some point. It is a fantastic article, and you deserve the star after your years of work on there.
Good luck with your future wiki endeavors, and if you feel like getting revenge, I have an FAC up too :P (hence why I reviewed yours in the first place) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and perhaps your analysis of the situation is correct. I'll probably wait until my vacation finishes in a week's time before starting a second nomination, but the academic year is looming ahead for me, and disruption of my studies would be even worse than disruption of my vacation. I might actually take a look at the article you have up for featured status; I do have some interest in hurricanes, and I've never done a review before. One thing I noticed right away is that the first paragraph mentions the storm forming on June 28, but -- as far as I can tell -- the year has not been mentioned yet by then. -- tariqabjotu 20:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

subtropical cyclone

That guy is clearly not willing to talk. He just keeps vandalizing by plausible misinformation to articles (minor alteration of facts), which is categorized under sneaky vandalism. 165.125.180.10 (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hurricanehink&oldid=507777989"