User talk:Inks.LWC/Archive 6

1950-1959

I'm doing research on the Korean War, and found your 1950&51 info very helpfull. Do you plan on finished 52-53? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.11.83.5 (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Winter Storm Brutus

I noticed that you were a part of the Winter Storm Athena/2012-13 U.S. winter storm season fiasco. So, I thought you would like to stop by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter Storm Brutus and offer your input. Thanks, United States Man (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

New Message

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

Sorry

I am just a bitter eagles fan; having some fun. I figured someone would quickly fix the 'joke' . Once again, I apologize. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.228.98 (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Meow edit war

Inks.LWC, mind if you can help solve the dispute between Meow and Me?! Meow keeps on replacing a image of Bopha seen from space in bad quality, while, i'm replacing it with a larger, brighter, more high def image. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Typhoon_Bopha_(2012)&action=history -- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉ ^Talk _Contribs 04:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really understanding what's going on there. I'll talk to him and see if I can help. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand, Inks.LWC. Thank you for the message. It shall not be done in the future.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 08:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:Tornadoes of 2012 revert

I don't know how that happened. It is possible that I accidently pressed the rollback button, but it would have showed up that I had reverted after the rollback had been done. Anyway, sorry and thank you for fixing my mistake. United States Man (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I figured it was something like that. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

New version of AWB

An updated version of AWB is now available here. Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm having a hard time finding a page that says what all was changed in the new edition? Any help, if you know where it's at? Inks.LWC (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Inks.LWC. You have new messages at Jason Rees's talk page.
Message added 22:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jason Rees (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Inks.LWC. You have new messages at Earth100's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 04:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Cyclone tracks

Windows 8 since about a month ago. But with old MinGW32 DLLs dated 2001.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 17:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Typhoon Bopha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palawa (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) 11:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Inks.LWC. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup

Hello, Inks.LWC, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:

• The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
• Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
• If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
• Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
• Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Freda

My temptation for Freda and its article is to publish after the storm has dissipated and we have a better idea on the damage in the Sols and New Cal.Jason Rees (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright... sounds good to me. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

2000

Your Template:Sandbox2 seems to have an allergy to the year 2000-01 and a less severe one to 2010.Jason Rees (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I know how to fix it. If I get my law school reading done, I'll try to finish it up tonight. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well let me know when you do manage to "fix" it.Jason Rees (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've had more reading than I thought I would. Tomorrow nigh will be the night. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Belated and depressingly long response from Tenebris (216.254.156.17)

Yes, I do check my user talk pages, but fairly rarely, owing to (1) dial-up Internet (no consistent talk page) and (2) much other work -- although possibly not as much as a law student soon to discover articling and bar examinations. I prefer the non-consistent talk page (or preferably no personal talk page at all) for the same reason as I prefer board-based discussion over blogs and Facebook. Honestly, to me, any structure (Internet or otherwise) designed to be dominated by a single person feels like little more than self-gratification.

I am not and will never be registered at Wikipedia, and yet I sign my comments. I am grateful to another Wikipedian who has taught me to do so with five tildes, which gives time and date and thereby avoids a confusion which actually does have a relevance for discussions.

As to my determined IP status, Wikipedia is said to be open to all. You must know it is not, through protection and semi-protection, but most importantly through common member attitude and assumptions. Have you never noticed the strong member bias against IP editing? Have you never noticed how frequently IP contribution to discussion is ignored or belittled for no other reason than that it comes from an IP?

I give a visible identity to IPs beyond the common member uneasiness of "potential vandal" and equally common member assumption of "uncommitted". By signing my username on talk pages, I am no longer an anonymous IP -- yet I remain an IP nevertheless.

You wrote "Since you're not registered, this can be somewhat confusing to editors, and other editors cannot directly click that to access your contribution history." Yet editing history can be traced as clearly through IP as through registered username, if there is a need for it. Change the last couple of digits in my IP, and you can easily trace all my editing history should you so wish. The only reason to speak of confusion is to insist that my actions are not transparent enough to others -- and yet, by allowing my IP to be seen by all, they are actually more transparent than yours or any registered member's.

If we set aside the "confusion" of other editors, what other reasons possibly exist for me to become a Wikipedia member? In the absence of a nice clear editing record, I won't get any barnstars or other awards for my editing work. Yet at Wikipedia, the only real measure is whether others accept one's work or find it incomplete or flawed. One's work thus either stands on its own legs or it is edited by others. The basic cooperative raison d'etre for Wikipedia is to create a resource which is useful to others. Ego has nothing whatsoever to do with that, especially if one truly does accept that one's own text may possibly not be perfection incarnate. So why would I need barnstars?

As a determined IP, I have another curious advantage most might not recognise as an advantage -- independence of viewpoint. I have contributed positively to Wikipedia for more than half a decade now. I probably know the pillars and rules of Wikipedia as well as some of the administrators. I think that speaks of some degree of investment in Wikipedia's ideals. And yet, I remain an IP -- and so I see much of the interaction at Wikipedia as many non-member contributers see it, albeit with some understanding of why some members react as they do. Occasionally this has allowed me to act as interpreter between two who both clearly believe in Wikipedia's purpose, although they have different understandings of it. (*laugh* -- I am the quintessential Libra. I always automatically try to see all sides of things.)

Incidentally, the automatic impersonal Sinebot messages which "welcome" IPs in the same breath as they invite IPs to become members may have some use -- for potential members who have never received such a message before. So, once, maybe twice, by way of information. But after the first couple of times, a person has either become a member or does not wish to become a member. At that point, they rapidly become an insistent irritant. I wonder, has it ever occurred to any Wikipedia member to code in a limit to the number of automated membership messages which can be sent to any given IP?

(As you notice here, I do answer personal messages, although not all that promptly. I don't answer e-mail messages all that fast either. (No smart phone, no desire for one. If I am away from the computer, I am fully away.) But if a person takes the time to write me, some genuine effort has been put into the message. It is only courteous to acknowledge that effort and reply.)

Btw I do like your take on "winter storm Athena" etc. I will add just one more note to your symphony -- branding. A brand need not be registered to be effective. If TWC/NBC can get enough people even talking about its names, that automatically points those who hear and are curious toward increased viewership of TWC/NBC. What is the bottom line of any private business? (If a government department can be subverted in the process, so much the better. Views wasted on the NWS don't bring in profit for any private business.)

Now, take it one step further. Think about how often you have heard the reification that 75% of United States residents get their weather news from the Weather Channel; and the related reification about how often the NHS got it wrong and TWS got it right. Who gains most from this?

As a curious psychological fact, most people have already forgotten the source of any given information less than thirty minutes after they encounter it, whether that original source be fact or fiction. In our hyper-social media sphere, possibly all it took to plant the idea was for someone to originally mention that "fact" as "fact" on Twitter or a board somewhere. How many people would question it in the slightest?

• laugh* And so we return (indirectly) to your future law career. Courtroom lawyers have something in common with scientists, in the need to find an explanation which fits the observed evidence. In the court of science, at least in theory, scientists are held to account by other scientists, so that explanations which turn out not to be so are constantly revisited and retested, and in time the original wrong explanation is forgotten except by historians. In the court of law, however, the explanation which sways the first jury or judge carries a unique weight, which even subsequent overturning by higher courts may never completely overcome. Every legal decision, even the most routine, carries with it the hidden weight of people's hopes and horrors, dreams and despairs, futures, lives. (After all, you already know that 2+2 is not nearly as simple and straightforward as most people think!)

May your future career grant you all that you seek. - Tenebris 01:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.85 (talk)

Thank you for the response. I understand where you are coming from, and I agree that IP contributions are often seen as inferior. My one suggestion is that perhaps in your edit history you mention that you are signing something as Tenebris, at least on pages that have a lot of quick responses (heavy traffic articles at the time). The reason I suggest this is that I remember when trying to figure out who "Tenebris" was, I had to compare a lot of diffs to figure it out, and it was somewhat time consuming. If you at least connect the name to the IP in the edit summary, someone wishing to contact you on your IP talk page for some reason or look at your contribution history could do so without having to compare dozens of diffs (which is a potential problem on articles with heavy discussion). If you decide not to do this, fair enough... I just thought I would give the suggestion. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

For the most part, I tend to avoid articles with heavy discussion (usually a synonym for controversy) until the topic has receded enough into the past to allow more objectivity. The avoidance is not perfect (grin), but it is fairly close to it. Based on discussions I have read, the usual reason to check back along past edits during these kinds of heavy discussions is to see if there is a pattern of edits and opinions (often by way of identifying bias during a debate). Since I do not care about proving right or wrong on Wikipedia while an issue is hot (see Stephen Colbert and Wikiality), I mostly just wait for those kinds of discussions to die down before I make my edits. That also keeps me clear of many semi-protected pages which (may be) legitimately semi-protected. (Official Wikipedia policies aside, I suspect we both know that the default preference of many member editors is to keep semi-protection on articles indefinitely.)

Where I do get involved with a discussion, everything relevant to that discussion is directly on the discussion page for all to see. Nothing relevant to that discussion is said elsewhere. If someone wishes to contact me about things said on that discussion page, it can be said right on that discussion page. I may possibly not reply unless addressed to me directly -- especially if someone else has already addressed the point -- but I will see.

People may want to search out my edit history for other reasons. That is their prerogative. As there is no rule-related need for it (I do not get involved in edit wars/RR3s etc), the primary valid reason for a history search is personal curiosity. If that curiosity is strong enough, the record of my edits is there to be found. I see no particular reason to particularly enable searches made for the reason of curiosity. (Although for the record (and for the curious), there is no particular consistency or pattern to the topics I edit or the depth of edits made to any given topic. One day, I rewrote and expanded an article about a historic train station. Another, I doubled the amount of text about seismology and geothermal drilling. Although I hold advanced degrees, I continue to be a determined generalist in an age of specialists.)

As a curious note, I have on occasion overlapped IPs with at least one other vandal, and been temp-banned for their actions. This happens when you have a non-constant IP and edit as an IP. In those cases, I wait it out if I happen to be on a working streak; or sometimes I check back if I have had to go off-line and then on-line again to see if I still fall within the banned range. Now, imagine if I were to take your suggestion and identify myself specifically as "Tenebris" on each IP edit page. I identify my own discussion statements, but should I take responsibility for the edits of others as well? (Broadband is so standard these days, many people forget the quirks of dial-up.) - Tenebris 22:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.136 (talk)

Sandy

Id hold fire on GANing Sandys MH article since its TCR should be out by early February and "could according to Hurricanehink dramatically change things if it is a hurricane landfall".Jason Rees (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, OK, I didn't think about that. I'll withdraw it. Inks.LWC (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea, when I made the article, I always planned on waiting for the TCR. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Inks, why do you report a user who hasn't done any significant things? I can't stand your behavior. --✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 11:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I never made an attack INks, and i'm really tired of you getting in to all of my business! --✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 00:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Inks what you did in the southwest Indian ocean cyclone season was terrible! You cn spanned a sourced text, you changed the dates, WHY?--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 00:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that you're blocked, but just in case you come here to read this, I want you to know why I did that. I cn-spanned the "sourced" text, because a Wikipedia talk page is not a valid source. I changed the dates because the dates were incorrect. All three of those sources were published before the sentence that they were supposed to be referencing, some by even more than one day. Something published on December 28 cannot be referencing something supposedly done on January 1. The reason that the article dates were wrong is that when you wrote that part of the article, you used the date that the source was archived, not the date it was published by the JTWC. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Cyclone tracks program

No I haven't used it in Linux, but I can offer some suggestions based on using it in Windows. This is a typical run command:

track --name GARRY  --output output\Garry_2013_track.png  --input c:\jdk\apps\hurtrax\trackspac.prn --bg whole.png --extra 1 --negx 0 --negy 1

track is the name of the executable. This may need to be ./track in Linux even if your current directory is the one the executable is in.

--name GARRY is the name of the storm, exactly as in the input file (case sensitive).

--input and --output file names can include any necessary path.

--extra 1 you are unlikely to need. It is only necessary when a track contains only not-fully-tropical points.

--negx 0 interprets longitudes as E; --negx 1 interprets them as W (default).

--negy 1 interprets latitudes as S; --negy 0 interprets them as E (default).

track --help lists all the available parameters.

It's easiest to collect your data in one or more HURDAT files; this is the format of the numbered lines in e.g. Talk:2012 Pacific typhoon season/Tracks. Data for storms back to 1997 can be obtained from NRL here - drill down to your year, basin, storm and trackfile.txt and use my webpage here to convert this to HURDAT format.

Hope this is of some help.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 13:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And what directory do you run the command in? Inks.LWC (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Scott Menville

A link was provided (before today's revisions) but was removed. The article has been nominated due to the content dispute and notability of the subject. 201.229.38.2 (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But that link did not work either. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Please help me learn how to resolve difference of style & opinion

Dear LWC,

I've posted a response to your recent handling of my edits on Talk:High-pressure area in which I've tried to lay our my reasoning and understanding. Apparently, I'm not handling myself well; my experience in WP is trivial compared to yours.

So, please , when you have a chance (no rush) consider responding to the arguments laid out in my earnest but novice attempts.

GreggEdwards (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Inks.LWC. You have new messages at PinkAmpersand's talk page.
Message added 21:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
• HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Inks.LWC. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

First deadly U.S. tornado since June 2012

Here are a few articles... 1, 2, 3. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well if you knew there were articles, you should've added them to the article. You can't just put stuff like that in unreferenced. I've added it in. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

ITN for February 2013 nor'easter

--Spencer^T♦C 05:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support

LWC, please accept my thanks for your support during my RfA. It did not end as hoped, but I will endeavor to show myself worthy of your support in my future editing. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Keep up the good work! Inks.LWC (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Edie Sedwick Andy Warhol update 17 February 2013

I am an artist and film maker. My cousin, Dr Tom Flynn, is an art historian who has written several books on art. My inclusion concerning Edie Sedgwick is a matter of history to those who have studied Warhol will attest to the significance of Edie Sedgwick as a figment in the development of the Warhol cultural idea.

Andy Warhol and Edie Sedgwick can be found all over You Tube as is the Merv Griffen TV show I referred to. Also here is my film : http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_edit?ns=1&video_id=hfhg66Yz5vw&feature=vm

To not specify Edie Sedgwick in regard to Andy Warhol is leaving out a major piece of history and rendering an incomplete tale.

P James Flynn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.243.136 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The living and the dead

Not meaning to pick on you, but "WP:BLP"? Surely not. Rivertorch (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

THAT WAS SO UNFAIR!

I worked like 4 hours on that article! Maybe you should've asked me before you deleted it! 2013 Adairsville, Georgia Tornado

(PageInformer (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC))