User talk:AstroHurricane001/Archive 15

Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

December 2007

Post on 2007AHS

I just had to say that the post you left on 2007 AHS talk page a month ago on extratropical storms was by far the longest post I've ever seen in my life on any forum. I actually copied and pasted it into Word and it was a page and a half, single-spaced. 1,129 words! Good God man! Some of our articles aren't that long. I was doing some archiving when I noticed it. I couldn't keep myself from mentioning that. That's incredible. How long did it take you to write that? -- §HurricaneERICarchive 19:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

{havefun template

Deleted as vandailsm Dlohcierekim 00:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

fine line

I have no problem with content in user space as long as it is not "fair use." Wikipedia is uncensored. If the user wants content on his page, it is better for him to keep it on his userpage rather than in the mainspace. Looks like a new user, so he probably does not know the finer points yet. Templates are another matter because they can introduce content inappropriately. Image someone speed pasting that into a series of articles! Eventually, you see it all on Wikipedia. Dlohcierekim 01:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC) If someone should decide to overturn that, then that's OK too. Or they can take it to WP:DRV. From there it would go to WP:XFD. Dlohcierekim 01:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Image choice and placement

I noticed you placed several of the images recently that I have rm'd from articles. I thought I would give you my thoughts on the problems with these images:

Image:Telescope Celestron window.jpg - The telescope pictured is a type of Newtonian telescope. The part sticking up in the air is the mirror mount and therefore the bottom of the telescope, in other words, the telescope is upside down. I have rm'ed this image since a telescope orientated the wrong way is not a very good illustration. It also suffered from Pertinence and encyclopedicity since it was a redundant image in an article about Telescope types, not telescope models.

Image:Orion startrails window.jpg - This image is un-readable as a thumbnail as required re: WP:IMAGE. It was also a redundant image in Orion (constellation).

You may want to review Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement re:redundant images, properly informative images, revealing relevant detail as a thumbnail. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Upside down Newtonians are something I see allot of... especially in ads. It makes me want to write the ad people and say "hmmm, and that guy is looking at his own shoes at very high power because.....????" I did see its placement in Celestron but left it because it’s not too redundant (although it is still upside down). You could always go back to that store and ask the people to point the thing right side up and shoot another picture. It looks to be a GoTo telescope so may be a good add to that article in the correct orientation. Size and pertinence of images is more something where you can follow common sense more than any advice I can give you. Wikipedia is not a repository of images (yes.. Commons is a good place to put these images in general since they may have other uses). Images on Wikipedia should meet the following logic - "This image (where we can actualy see something at thumbnail size), is in this spot, in this article because it specifically describes _________ that another image does not." Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Retiring/Birthday and such

Thanks for remebering! Today is my birthday. Yeah I'm retiring, feel like I never edit anymore. I'll probably hang around hurricanes.wikia, maybe. We'll see. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts and good wishes! Cyclone1(21:56-13-12-2007) —Preceding comment was added at 21:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WPTC Active Members

User:Hurricanehink/Active

Tasco

Fixed - You added in an extra <ref> tag. That caused major screw-ups. NF24(radio me!) 22:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Winter storms

  • Sorry, I haven't posted you the message about the discussion, I have only sent messages to those who have signed their names in the Participants section of the WikiProject Meteorology - as been the general WP weather-related project, I haven't sent to those who have signs to the projects related to Tropical or severe weather.--JForget 03:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Natalie Thomas PROD

Natalie Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The PROD reason given was "Non notable weather presenter", and the tag was placed by Nuttah (talk · contribs) on December 2, 2007. When I deleted the article, the proposed deletion time had expired and there were no contests to the deletion. If you want, I can temporarily restore the page if you have a need for a particular part of it, or provide you the whole contents as they were when they were deleted by e-mail, but to have the page restored back to normal, you will have to list it at Wikipedia:Deletion review and follow the methods there. As for the lack of notification, it's a necessary step for the proposing editor, as it would seem unfair to the author not to have a say in it, however, I'm not really sure that a notice of deletion is usually handed out. Cheers, Spebi 03:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was not involved in proposing the deletion at all, but I did make the deletion when it was time for it to be made, but when I checked up on it, no apparent attempts to contest the proposal had been made. I strongly suggest talking to Nuttah further about this matter rather than myself. If you do decide to reincarnate the article through Deletion review, I suggest you create the page in a user subpage to move into the main namespace if consensus is to overturn the deletion and rewrite the article. This also allows people who comment in the debate to see what the article will look like and will it differ from the old deleted version. If you do decide to do this, I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and its criteria to see if Natalie Thomas does satisfy it, and if she does, the article must state it. This is quite an important stage in rewriting deleted articles as you need to convince those in the debate that an article on Natalie Thomas is needed in Wikipedia. Spebi 21:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I haven't paid much attention to WP as of late, but thanks for the correction. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Place names with English meanings

An article that you have been involved in editing, Place names with English meanings, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Place names with English meanings. Thank you. Orlady (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)