User talk:Mitchazenia/Archive4

Re: Your directing thing

I like it. Nice job! -- RattleMan 19:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh, it seems that the "New messages" button has moved to below my post...maybe try moving it above your directing button template? -- RattleMan 19:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah well.It'll have to stay.Did you get the list i left you?HurricaneCraze32 22:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking of how to clean it up. -- RattleMan 23:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Good.HurricaneCraze32 00:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Re. LNBS

Are you kidding?!?!... no way!... first, of all I dont see the point of the LNBS since wikipedia users are the only people who know about LNBS. Second, LNBS is not an offical wikipeida article. third, wikipedia is not a democracy, you do NOT own the wikipedia articles. Storm05 18:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Deleted Edits

Have you nominated articles for deletion? That tends to raise your deleted edit count as all of your edits to the nomination will be deleted. That said, there's nothing wrong with having deleted edits. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 1 May 2006 @ 22:15 UTC

If you are looking at Interiot's counter, it's buggy right now (because the toolserver's on the fritz) and I wouldn't trust it. --AySz88^-^ 03:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that's on the fritz,and my deletion log is empty.HurricaneCraze32 10:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion logs track admin deletions of articles, not articles you've contributed to that have been deleted. NSLE _(T+C) at 13:45 UTC (2006-05-2)

Thanks man.HurricaneCraze32 18:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Help

Sure, I'll look over and give you help at some point, but I'm concentrating on my personal pet project at the moment (2005). A couple suggestions for you: Look at Hurricane Irene (2005). That storm is comparable to many of the LNBS storms, but that article is about as complete as possible (its probably going to FAC soon). It should be able to give you real guidance on stuff to add. Also explore the NHC archive. For the post 1998 storms there is all the advisory information for instance.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Reformatted

Good re-organization. One thing I notice is that all of the storms in Part Two caused few or no deaths. If you are considering creating articles for all LNSB storms, then you should completely abandon Part Two. All of those articles would be extremely difficult to make into a good article, and probably don't even have enough information. For part one, you probably won't be able to do Floyd (1993), Marco, Jerry, and Clara. Floyd didn't make landfall, so that instantly makes it not even worthwhile. Marco is too connected to Klaus to have a decent, separated article. Jerry already has an article. Also, Clara didn't even make landfall, despite what it says in the infobox. The rest have potential, but need some work. Good work, and good luck. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yea, good choice of articles. Matthew should be easy, given its newness. Likewise with Kyle. Michael, due to its lack of effects, could be hard, but it would be worth it. Jose shouldn't be too bad, as there was already a Jose article (that got merged). Because the hurricane hit U.S. territories, it should be easy. Tanya is going to be very hard. Do you have a link stating the hurricane even killed the one person? In the TCR, it says no casualties were reported. I already told you about Marco and Jerry. Gabrielle, because it didn't make landfall, would be very hard to make a full article, but it's a good choice of something to eventually work on. TD 14, while I'm not sure why you're obsessed on it, is going to be another hard one, mainly because it was only a tropical depression. However, I would love to see an article on a depression someday, so you should try and find some more, good info. Bonnie is an interesting, yet good choice. I'm sure you can find a lot more info if you just google Hurricane Bonnie and 1986. That is getting close for publication, in terms of information. You just need to give it a good copyedit. Danny has an article already (forgot about it), so you should just delete it. Bob needs more info in general, as well as some structure and grammar fixes. Ella is going to be difficult, as it didn't make landfall, so good luck with that. While Frances is an important part of Emmy's track, I see no need to have an article for the two of them. An article on Emmy, which is needed, would be find. You should work more on that, and add as much as possible. Caroline, due to lack of effects, is going to be hard, so that is a poor choice, in my opinion. Finally, possibly good choice on Cleo. If there's info, you should go further with it, though it still would be tough. All in all, interesting choices for new hurricane articles, but some are decent. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's probably good. Now you should work on them one by one until you think they are awesome. Whenever possible, include a preparations section, including if people were evauated or if there were hurricane warnings. Be sure the impact section is relatively long. Good luck. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Matthew would be a good one to start with. I am currently a little busy with some other projects, but I can give you some pointers. First, always look if there was a previous version of the article. In Matthew's case, a user made it in the past, but it was merged. If you wish to make a Matthew article, this Matthew article could be a good start. Next, simply look up "Tropical Storm Matthew" on Google, and you'll find a lot of information. It may seem daunting, but take every single site you find and add any information on Matthew to the Matthew article that wasn't there before. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but not at all. You don't have any information on actual damage. You have to do some serious research to make an article, not just little fixes. If you made a user page for Matthew, like 14, Marco, or Bob, it would be easier to see what you need to do. Work on it for a few days, and get back to me when it looks like good. If you need an article to base the format on, you could use Bill from 2003. Just take your time, do some research, and try and make it look nice. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Tanya also. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know

Someone started up the Tropical Storm Matthew (2004) article again. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast. You should just take your research and put it into the article. If you do that, be sure to work with what's written. Don't just delete what's there, but don't simply copy and paste yours in. You have to work the information into the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't say that. Tanya and Kyle are still open. Those other potential articles should still be made... eventually after more work is put into them. Maybe you're being too ambitious. Not everyone is good at making articles. However, you could become a valuable asset to the team if you were a researcher. Sure, Icelandic Hurricane has a lot in the Matthew article, but what doesn't he have? What is still out there that would be useful to the article? That is for you to find out. What about impact outside of Louisiana? Good luck, and don't give up. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Matthew

I see you've been told to team up with me in the Matthew article. If your trying to find more info for the impact, it's pretty tough. I've tried myself quite a bit, but that doesn't mean there isn't any more info. Anyway good luck with it (I'll try some more)! Also, I didn't realize that you had already uploaded the rain total for Matt (as I'll call it between us). Is it possible to delete one of them (I don't care which one, which ever one has a better name can stay)? Icelandic Hurricane #12_(talk) 12:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we need an admin; why don't you ask Tito(XD)? Icelandic Hurricane #12_(talk) 19:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: That's just mean

Unfortunately, he technically did nothing wrong. Ethically, it was horrible, but on Wikipedia, you must remember that you do not own pages. There's no reason to get rid of the article now that it was made. In addition, there's no need for a merge. If anything, you should be happy that someone took your work and made it better. Now, it's published, and Icelandic Hurricane fixed a couple of errors that you missed. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You should be talking to him about it. If anything, you should be talking to an administrator, who would be able to do anything. You still need to remember that you don't own articles. Icelandic Hurricane probably liked what he saw, and rather than waiting for you to publish it, he went ahead and did it. It's almost complimentary. Yes, you worked hard on it, but if someone else felt the need to use it, that shows you did a good job. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In addition to Frances/Emmy, 14, and Kyle, you should do Tanya. I think it has enough info, plus i'm sure you could find a little more. Icelandic Hurricane #12_(talk) 11:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Icelandic Hurricane #12_(talk) 19:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

1995 season

For what its worth, if you are serious about 1995, you have set yourself up for a far bigger task than what I have with 2005, the information is much much poorer. If you want to do that you need to do heavy work on 1995 Atlantic hurricane season first. Look at 2004 Atlantic hurricane season and List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season to see things you could do to expand the season article. At this time an article on an individual minor storm from 1995 isn't appropriate because the season article isn't mature. As for information available the NHC's archive should be where you start. And in general terms, the best thing you can do is to work on one storm at a time and get its article to a decent quality before you start on another storm.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Aletta-2006-5 day cone.gif

I deleted Image:Aletta-2006-5 day cone.gif as a duplicate. You can save a new version of files over the old version; in this case you could have saved the latest NHC version over Image:2006 01E.NONAME 5 day.PNG, which had already been uploaded and was being used in the article. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:41 UTC (2006-05-30)