User talk:Storm05/Archive 3

Your list

It's still in the article history. Please do NOT post false information there and claim it's true again, we've had enough problems from trolls doing that. --Golbez 20:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635

Could you please make a estimated track for the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635? You said you would. When you're finished, you can just put on my discussion page. Thankx! Icelandic Hurricane #12 11:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bering Sea Hurricane of 1977

First, great job for finding that. While it was an interesting read, the basic message of it was the formation of a polar low. Because it was not tropical, I would have removed it, but I thought I'd talk to you first, seeing as how cool it was. Perhaps you could re-write the section in the 1977 Pacific typhoon season article to reiterate that it was a polar low, or maybe you could move it to the Polar low page as an example of a polar low. However, the thing was not tropical, and thus, not a hurricane. Hurricanehink 17:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I first thought it could be like Vince as well, due to the misleading title. I personally hate Polar Lows, because they can really look like strong hurricanes. While I don't mind it on the 1977 typhoon page, you might want to move it to the Polar Low page, because others might not find it relavent. Hurricanehink 17:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1933 damages

Where do you get the inflated damages for 1933? Unless I am very wrong (deflation?) there is no way inflation from 1933 to 2005 is 13x. — jdorje (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It looks like from 1928 to 1933 there was deflation. $100M in 1928 USD is $800M today, according to the NHC (see 1928 Okeechobee hurricane). According to that calculator it's $1066M. But $100M in 1933 USD is even more: $1354M. So the depression caused deflation (I didn't know the USD deflated). — jdorje (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very unhappy with you

Listen-I have a place where

Kyle-2002 Jose-1999 Debby-1982 Danny-1985 and Jerry-1989 is already listed-they dont meet characteristics for an article so my places is for less notable storms. User:HurricaneCraze32/Hurricanes Please stop stealing storms already somewhere else from me.HurricaneCraze32 22:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Hurricane of 1857

Is there a reason why you keep adding a link to the above storm in the 1857 Atlantic hurricane season summary? The article is a redirect, while the article it redirects to is displayed right in the article. Hurricanehink 19:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 assessment

Just curious, you mentioned a few times on the merging page that the 2005 assessment is not done yet and that some storms will be changed. However, most storms have their reports by now. If they update them later, what changes do you think are going to happen with the 2005 storms? Hurricanehink 20:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Help!

I'm not sure if I'll be able to help. While the idea sounds good, it seems like way too big of a project, and I have other projects going on (Mitch) while keeping my real life in balance (scholarships, music, relationships, work). You might want to consider asking those at the Weather Wikiproject. Sorry. Hurricanehink 15:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

drought

An edit summary you applied to La Nina Droughts of 2005-06 says moved worldwide drought of 2005-06 to here. You did not move the article, you did a copy-and-paste - this is something one does not do because it destroys the edit history - always use the move command. (OK in this case it was mainly your work but the principle is the same.) I have moved the article back and merged the histories - under the title Worldwide Drought of 2005-06 the article is pretty POV. Moving it to "La Nina ..." makes things worde by presuming the cause of the droughts. -- RHaworth 17:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New cyclone articles

I see you've been busy with new typhoon and hurricane articles. However, I've had to Copyedit many of them due to poor grammar/sentence structure and the occasional misspelling. Would you mind if before creating an article (with a draft already done in userspace), contacting one of the Wikiproject people to copyedit it before it reaches mainspace? For example, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Which would you say is better phrased? The original version, or the copyedited one? Cheers, NSL E _(T+C) at 01:07 UTC (2006-04-08)

Oh, and, by the way, tropical depression, typhoon, hurricane and super typhoon all redirect to tropical cyclone, so there's no need to link all of those words. Also, "category 3 hurricane" v. "Category 3 hurrcane", which seems more right? (Genuine question, I seem to think capitalisation of "category" is better) NSL E _(T+C) at 01:11 UTC (2006-04-08)

Re: Typhoon Billie

Wow, nice job with that. There's still a few spelling errors, but that's a good start article. Also, I have a message to tell you. There's been a proposal for a regime change, sorta. I'm not sure if you know, but a recent vote on the talk page for the 2005 season indicated that every storm should have an article. This could be the domino that could allow every storm to have an article, at least eventually, so some of your former articles may be de-merged, especially some of your newer ones. I'm not saying you should bring them back right away, but your hard work might be usable now that the criteria for article creation is gone with the exception for information. Just curious, are you an advocate for every storm has an article? If so, you could show some of the articles to the 2005 page as a final push for this to happen. At the most, it might be an article for every storm back to the maximum of 1995, but your articles are good starts. By showing it, you could show how little work is needed. If you do this, please don't mention my name, but I thought I'd let you know of what might be happening. Hurricanehink 15:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub sections

You are adding a huge number of storm articles for storms that just have stubs in the season article. Please, expand the season article first and only if the storm section gets too long should a new article be created. — jdorje (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mph/knots

In articles, there is no need to include knots after mph. [eg. 113 mph (98 knots) should be 115 mph (180 km/h), rounding 113 off]. NSL E _(T+C)^{(seen this?)} at 04:28 UTC (2006-04-12)

Pictures

You recently uploaded a lot of pictures, and you indicated they were copyrighted yet allowed to be used. However, none of them are public domain. You'd better talk to an admin about that, as I'm pretty sure a lot of them are not allowed. Hurricanehink 22:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of them have NOT been released. You CANNOT assert no rights reserved when rights have not been released. This is violation of copyright and could get Wikipedia in trouble. First and only warning for using incorrect (false) image tags, as this is serious (one image's originating page said "All rights reserved" yet you tagged it NRR). NSL E _(T+C)^{(seen this?)} at 00:12 UTC (2006-04-14)

By the way, a lot of them will have to go for improper licensing (as we cannot meet the terms of some of their licenses). NSL E _(T+C)^{(seen this?)} at 00:18 UTC (2006-04-14)

Some statistics

Here are some statistics on the number of tropical cyclone articles, if you haven't seen them.

Atlantic-

5 Featured articles
4 A-class articles
55 B-class articles
116 Start articles
2 Stub articles

Eastern Pacific-

1 featured article
0 A-class articles
4 B-class articles
13 Start articles
1 Stub articles

Western Pacific-

0 featured articles
0 A-class articles
1 B-class article
16 Start articles
4 Stub articles

Total-

7 Featured articles
4 A-class articles
62 B-class articles
154 Start articles
13 Stub articles

Retired Atlantic-

3 Featured articles
3 A-class articles
27 B-class articles
36 Start articles
1 Stub article

Retired EPAC-

1 Featured article
0 A-class articles
1 B-class article
4 Start articles
1 Stub article

Retired WPAC-

0 Featured articles
A-class articles
1 B-class article
11 Start articles
0 Stub articles

Could you stop with the article creating for now and help work on bringing some of the start articles to a better quality? It's great to see someone so enthusiastic about tropical cyclones, but could you work on some of the existing articles instead? Hurricanehink 16:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Possible Storms

Got some more possible storms for yah. Please reply and tell me if youre gonna use any of them.

—Thats all I have right now. I'll keep lookin. Cyclone1 22:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Redundant article

Don't worry, it was merged. Hurricanehink 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

I'm sorry, I cannot understand your unblock reason. As the unblock template pasted says "If the block message says that your IP address is blocked or that your IP address was recently used by a blocked user, please paste the block message below.", i.e. the full message so we can see the root cause of the block, without the detail we cannot undo it since we simpy don't have the information. --pgk^(talk) 19:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put the infomation on my talk page and Im waiting for someone to unblock me. Storm05 15:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should no longer be blocked. Pepsidrinka 19:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ElenaHOUSE.jpg

I nominated your picture Image:ElenaHOUSE.jpg for deletion due to incorrect licensing. While your enthusiam for tropical cyclones is commendable, wikipedia requires full compliance with copyright laws. See WP:IFD. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving ou the benefit of the doubt here, but per the above section, this is your final warning for using incorrect image tags - it's disrupive and can get us into trouble. NSL E _(T+C) at 01:19 UTC (2006-04-20)

unblock request

I can't find an active autoblock for @@@@ at the moment, try again and see if you are OK. If there is still a problem please replace the unblock tag. Thanks. --pgk^(talk) 19:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Assessments

I see you added quite a few articles to the assessments page, but the page is only for raising articles from B class to A class. Do you honestly think any of those articles are A class? Hurricanehink 16:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Do you really think any of them are A class worthy? Some of them are B-class, but I don't think any of them are good enough. The best is probably Dennis, and that's far away from A class. Currently, a prerequesite for A class is having a preparations and aftermath section as well. While some of them might have that, a lot of information is needed to reach A class, and many storms will never make it. Hurricanehink 21:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:pictures

I don't know about Hazel, so you should ask an admin. If you're afraid of NSLE, you could ask Golbez, TomF688, or Titoxd. In addition, the Emily picture you added might not be allowed. The site might be a .gov site, but the picture you uploaded was from a .com site, which is copyrighted. Hurricanehink 21:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information on storms

Hey, I know you like creating articles on hurricanes. I'm not sure if you are aware of the existence of a very useful source for that purpose. I had a look at Hurricane Helene (1958) and you took most of your data from the 1958 season report. If you go to this link on the NHC site, you have the archives of the TCRs right back to 1958. For example for 1958's Helene there is much more information than the season summary you have been working from, including newspaper cuttings (in /news). That archive should enable you to write higher quality articles, hope it helps! --Nilfanion 22:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible bets

I'm pretty sure you realize this, but almost every bet you made in the betting pools was imposible or nearly so. (300 mph? -290milibars? 500,000 deaths? $500 billion in Damage. Don't think so. I just had to say that. 207.101.97.122 (actually Freiberg) 15:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:I'm Very Unhappy with you

Listen. I will apolgize for my dang actions if we make a deal. You stop stealing my storms, i can move your failed ones to the LNBS.Think aboout it and reply please.HurricaneCraze32 18:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No attitude please-I only meant that failed Erika (2003) one....It's not part of Wikiproject until its finished-why do you think i've tried to keep it secret for some months?HurricaneCraze32 18:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at both your talk pages, I'm afraid I've lost track of where and how this started. I'd like to know how this started, so if either of you could clear this up it would be good. A few points to note, though; HC32, Storm05 is right in saying that you don't own any articles except anything within your userspace, and that LNBS is not an article. You don't have any right to say "I'm making this article, no one else can", and neither does anyone else. You're all free to make different versions of articles, then perhaps you can compare and put forward a finished article that may be twice as good as either one individually. NSL E _(T+C) at 01:14 UTC (2006-04-29)

I am not doing it myself.Storm05 here almost ruined it for me here.HurricaneCraze32 15:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]