User talk:E. Brown/Archive 6

HURRICANE ERIC ADVISORY ARCHIVE 6

This is an archive page, DO NOT edit!

Image:October subtropical storm.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:October subtropical storm.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1-min v 10-min

Just for your reference 10 minute is the WMO average. Check this WMO document, section 5.5 starts "TCP engaged the services of Systems Engineering Australia Pty. Ltd. in July 2003 to undertake reviews and assessments that would lead to suitable conversion factors between the WMO 10-minute average wind and 1-minute, 2-minute and 3-minute “sustained” winds". 1 min is primarily (but not exclusively) used by the US.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, look at the JMA typhoon site [1], it quite clearly states "MXWD : Maximum wind speed(10min. average)". As for JTWC that is unofficial see their disclaimer at the top of their site. And the AMA?? The Australian govt org is called the Bureau of Meteorology - and they again use 10 minutes (and gusts).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopedia and are neutral. We are not U.S. Centric, and thus use the standard for the basin. Stop being so U.S.-centric - we're not here to serve the people of the United States. – Ch acor 04:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take offence to your comment as I am Asian and am from Singapore. Also, WP:NPOV, WP:BIAS. – Ch acor 04:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as a European I don't exactly look upon that favourably either. Remember WP is an encyclopedia NOT a news source, besides if someone thinks "oh a its only a TS I don't have to worry about that", they are not being sensible. WP:BIAS is important here, just because the USA does it, doesn't mean we should. And as the JTWC says "don't use us!", that means WP:NOR comes into it as well. Look at the mess on Cyclone Larry, as the BoM do not use 1-minute, there were nasty edit wars over its SS category (and Australians are English speakers...)--Nilfanion (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forget one thing: The United States is not the only English speaking nation. Australian cyclones use gusts and 10 minutes in km/h as that is what English-speaking Australians use. Are you suggesting that Typhoon Chanchu (2006) should use unofficial 1-minute speeds, instead of official 10-minute speeds, when the English speaking inhabitants of Hong Kong, which was affected understand 10 minutes?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read the following discussions: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 5#Saffir Simpson Scale incorrectly used and Talk:2006 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 01#Non-JMA storms (and just about all the current seasons and wikiproject archives over the past few months). The thing is we cannot use the JTWC ahead of the JMA, that violates OR, its unofficial - it says so!--Nilfanion (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually FYI, the thing is we cannot use JTWC data ahead of JMA data. We can use JTWC data in conjunction with JMA data - that is how the storm articles do things.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #4

The September issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hurricane Ernesto.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hurricane Ernesto.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated higher-resolution image is available at Wikimedia commons, which takes precendence. Please, where-ever possible, avoid uploading low-res images of TCs, since NOAA usually has high-res available. – Ch acor 17:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image used in the infobox at Hurricane Ernesto (2006), Image:Hurricane ernesto 20060827.jpg, is exactly the same, only of a higher resolution. The old file listed is now orphaned and not used in any article; there is no need to change anything. – Ch acor 17:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a stranger!

Just so you know, there is an IRC chat room sort of thing dedicated entirely for the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject. There's usually people around there to talk, about anything really. It can get things done faster than a talk page, too. Here's the link; http://www.ircatwork.com/ Just put your name in as the nick name (something so we know it's you), use irc.freenode.net as the server, and #wiki-hurricanes as the channel. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just checking :) Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HD Crash

Regarding your harddrive crash, what exactly happened to cause it to crash, and what happens now when you try to use it? I may be able to help. -- RattleMan 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gordon Theory

Interesting theory, nice. Actually, based on that, I think it could go either way. There did seem to be a bit of a circulation in the visibles while Gordon was in the Caribbean. Time will tell... Ugh, I hate how long the re-analysis is going to take. There's soo many storms I want to know what happened with. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #5

The October issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto image

SeaWIFS images are copyrighted. "NOTE: All SeaWiFS images and data presented on this website are for research and educational use only. All commercial use of SeaWiFS data must be coordinated with ORBIMAGE." – Ch acor 02:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You face a block if you do that. Remember, we have commercial mirrors. Regarding lawsuits, you obviously don't know. Many people have threatened WP with lawsuits. It's not something to take lightly. Fair use is not allowed on commons because commons is for FREE use images. – Ch acor 04:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a strict image policy for a reason. We do not accept images that are copyrighted (except under fair use - and those have to be uploaded to enwiki and NOT commons), that's the end of story. – Ch acor 05:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed this conversation. There are two things I think should be cleared up: 1) Wikipedia is intended to be copied by other sites, including commercial ones, and 2) Commons doesn't actually use the images (they're a collection of free images that happen to be integrated into Wikimedia's workings) so their images can't be "fair use" on their site if they're not the ones using it. —AySz88 \^-^ 05:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eric, it seem you have a slight misunderstanding of what imagery hosted here and on Commons is for. Commons is a host for free images meaning that anyone can use them for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Commons doesn't accept Fair Use imagery, partly because of that and also because Commons is a host for all WikiMedia projects, including those projects that do not accept any fair use stuff (that's most of them). In any case en.wikipedia has a restrictive set of Fair Use criteria, I suggest you read them. "Permission to use on Wikipedia" is NOT a free license, the copyright holder has to allow other people to sell their work. By the way, if you uploaded Fair Use images to Commons you would be liable to a block there; its not an idle threat.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 1940s AHS articles

Sorry if it seemed a little harsh to revert the assessments almost immediately, but generally, the best way to go about things is to add the information first, then re-assess based on the changes. It prevents people (particularly those within the project who know our article standards) from being confused if they see a partially complete article (even though you're still working on it) and notice that it isn't a stub. --Core des at 23:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I did most of the reverts, so I figured I'd speak up about it. I know it was an honest mistake, don't worry about it. --Core des at 00:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I won't do it again. --Core des at 00:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig

Hey Eric, I don't mean to sound nasty, but you really should revise your signature in line with WP:SIG. At the very least change you should shance the markup from:

to:

The latter is functionally identical: Compare the output from the original §Hurricane E RIC § archive and to the shortened version §Hurricane E RIC § archive

This has the advantage that it is significantly shorter as markup and causes less disruption for others when editing. You should probably also consider dropping several of those links: the link to the list especially, your email (if you never use it) and so on. Also simplifying the colours will greatly reduce its length. Thanks. By the way on the reversions, I know you were acting in good faith, but that guideline has been in place for some time, so the reverts are usually done quickly (when people notice).--Nilfanion (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect that the reason for it is that your attempt to have helvetica isn't working - because the site .css is overruling it or similar. Your current sig is in the same font as normal body text on Wikipedia (I'm not sure what that is). Can you see the advantage to the sig change?--Nilfanion (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #6

The November issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 1954 TD

My source for the unnamed TD in 1954 was the HPC. I had also added the rainfall graph to the page but it was changed to a picture from a sounding rocket; see this revision. Does this clear it up? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Your user page has been targeted for vandalism from IPs throughout the day, so I've semi-protected it for now. I'll unprotect it in a couple of days. --Core desat 22:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll unprotect it for now. If it gets bad again, let me know and I'll reprotect it. --Core desat 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going?

Hey, haven't talked to you in quite some time. Just seeing if you were still around as I browsed through my talk history. I left for a while over the summer but now the North Dakota winter boredom has brought me back. Weatherman90 03:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

70.155.127.202

Not sure if you've noticed the harrassment you've been getting from the above IP but I just blocked it for a month. Let me know if it starts from another anon account. Thanks mate Glen 13:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks to that idiocy, your school has been blocked for a month now. If that bothers the administrators in your school, you can show them Special:Contributions/70.155.127.202, and they can deal with it. However, you should be able to edit from there, as it is an anon-only block, with account creation disabled. Tito xd^(?!?) 16:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protected

Due the massive amount of anonymous vandalism your user page has had in the last hours, I have semi protected your user page. Feel free to request me or any other administrator to unprotect it anytime, even through Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Take care! -- ReyBrujo 04:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Re: HURDAT

Yea, I saw that a few months ago, and it was a great find. I'm not positive if it's 100% official, but I think it's reliable enough to base our pages off of it. Sadly, there's no track data :( Also, it only indicates TS or hurricane :( It's a great start for the pre-1850 era, though, and I guess we do now have a dot (or two) on the track map back to 1700. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, cool. It's hurricanehinker/AT/aol/DOT/com Hurricanehink (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly how you feel, and I said the same thing. Not only the largest, but the most intense cyclone on ever, I cannot wait until they have Tip. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Christmas gift

Congratulations, that's awesome you got it back! Be careful this time and back it up if you can ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Rant

Nice rant! I never knew how strongly you felt about the subject, and until I read it, never knew how strongly I felt about it. Well, all I can say is that I agree with you. It's just disrespectful not to retire a name that killed thousands because of a poor warning system. Poor warning system? At least think of a better reason than that! When I found out that Gordon had killed that many people and wan't retired, and Edith wasn't retired, and Anita was retired (not that much damage at all), and Klaus was retired, and that the WMO retires tropical cyclone names, I automatically lost all faith in them. *sigh* Ok, I need to get off of this subject. A few more things... Congrats on getting your archive back, I know how it feels to lose an archive. I think its pretty awesome that, to some extent, HURDAT has gone back to 1700, and that GIBBS is going back to 1979 (eventually). And finally, would you please e-mail me your track of the 1780 Cane (if you still have it)? If so, I'll give you my e-mail address, if not, don't worry about it. I saw your Gordon userbox, and I hope you don't mind if I steal from you. Sorry I wrote so much, and again, nice rant. →Cyclone1→ 20:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to break this to you, but your rant subpage is now on MFD - Wikipedia isn't a free web host or a soapbox, and it isn't a memorial either. Such a thing would probably be more appropriate on a personal website, not on a user subpage. --Core desat 01:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 1994 Possible Subtrop

Oh, that makes a lot of sense. I remember reading TD 10 being in the Caribbean at that time, and that the possible storm was in the northern Gulf of Mexico, but I never thought to put 2 and 2 together. Well, at least the NHC did know about it, though I wonder if they will give it further consideration in the future. It doesn't look to shabby in the northern GOM, though it looks pretty extratropical after entering the Atlantic Ocean. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, that did cut it pretty close. It was probably in the process of transitioning. If there was a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being tropical and 10 being extratropical, that was probably a 7. Yea, the two merged circulations is a pretty big nail. No prob about the Scooby Doo reference. Now I have some blackmail for the future. :P Hurricanehink (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm more of a Simpsons/ anything Nickelodeon kind of kid. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Angry Beavers were the best... So many good memories. I wasn't a fan of Animorphs the show, but I was very into the Animorphs books. Personally, I was more of a video game kid than a TV kid. Super Nintendo = significant portion of my childhood :) Hurricanehink (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is moronic that they would cancel a good show just because of saying shut up. I would think the mothers would be more offended by other remarks on the show (which are all pretty minor). Maybe there were also some internal problems that led to its demise. Banjo-Kazooie was great! I loved the sequel, and I was really hoping for a 3rd game... too bad Rare left Nintendo. I'm more of an action/adventure kind of player - Mario, Zelda, Star Fox, and Metroid, though shooters are always fun. Personally, my two biggest addictions were Pokemon (I memorized all 151 of them in order and knew loads of info on them) and Sim games (Sim City and The Sims mainly). Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #8

The January issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilf anion (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mediterranean Storms

(I think that's how you spell it). Here's my opinions

September 1983- Going by a quick look in the one IR image, it looks like a good candidate, though you never know. Surface temperatures is one of the biggest factors that could determine if it was good or not, but that doesn't exist. However, the visible image is pulling me very strongly towards tropicality. Status: I think it was a legitimate hurricane
January 1995- Hmmmmm. The storm is extremely small, and look at the time of year. Right now, for comparison, the water temperature in the Medit. Sea is about 50 to 60 degrees, and 1995 was probably similar (winter after an el nino year). While it does look pretty good on visible, notice all of the high clouds around it. If it were truly a warm core, that probably wouldn't be there. However, one shouldn't rule out subtropicality. Status: No comment
October 4, 1996- Not so sure on this one. The convection isn't terribly organized, but it still has good outflow and a good circulation. Status: I think it was a 55 mph tropical storm. It reminds me of a storm like Edouard 02 that while convection isn't terribly organized, it looks like the circulation is tightly wound.
October 8, 1996- They picked a horrible image for the article. This image shows it's a hurricane, something have little doubt about.
March, 1999- No chance for it being a tropical cyclone. It's March, it's poorly organized, and little convection.

I have a long list of possible Medit storms located here. I really like the subject, as you can probably tell. :) I believe the Jan. 2004 system was a subtropical storm. Based on the MODIS image, it looks pretty tightly wrapped, with good banding features. Convection isn't all of the way around, but the northwestern semicircle looks good. I don't know if the Medit storms are that different structurally. It's the same latitude as northern region of Atlantic hurricanes and Pacific typhoons. It's just that they're a little bit smaller. It reminds me of some storms in the Southwestern Indian Ocean south of Madagascar. They're not officially classified, but there are several storms that look like real tropical cyclones. Wind storms.... I'm not really sure about that. I think the NEPAC November "possibly subtropical" storm was somewhat tropical. It's like there's a scale from 1 to 10, with tropical being 1 and extratropical being 10. The NEPAC storm was probably a 6 or a 7, and it all depends if they want to round it to a 5. Yea, Alaska is more likely to get by a hurricane than Chile. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]