This is an archive of past discussions with User:AstroHurricane001. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The Hurricane Herald aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global tropical cyclone activity. If you wish to change how you receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.
Storm of the month
Cyclone Favio near Madagascar
Cyclone Favio developed well to the east of northern Madagascar on February 12 and moved to the southwest as it developed. The storm did not significantly intensify until February 19 when it was just off the southern coast of Madagascar, but rapidly intensified soon after to its peak with 185 km/h (115 mph) winds. Favio turned to the northwest and hit Mozambique worsening the floods already occurring in the country. Favio claimed at least 4 lives and destroyed thousands of homes.
Other tropical cyclone activity
There were a total of 6 tropical cyclones in the southern hemisphere during February. Five of these, including Favio, were in the South West Indian Ocean.
Cyclone Dora was active in January and reached its peak as an annular cyclone on February 3 with 185 km/h (115 mph) winds.
Cyclone Gamede was an unusually large storm that prompted the highest level of cyclone warning on Réunion and brought strong winds to the island on February 27, causing a bridge to collapse.
Neither Enok towards the start of the month or Humba near its end, had any impact on land.
Comments wanted on project talk
Many discussions that potentially have far reaching impact for the whole project are carried out on the project's talk page. However, only a fraction of our active contributors actually engage in those discussions. If you add the project page to your Watchlist and keep an eye on discussions there to monitor upcoming changes, even if you don't participate in those discussions it would help both yourself and the project as a whole. For instance, at the moment the primary infobox templates such as {{Infobox hurricane}} are in the process of being deprecated and replaced by new versions which do the role more effectively.
How?
^^ I have several wikipedia accounts (but I mainly use one), and just because I don't have many edits on THIS IP address doesn't mean I don't elsewhere. I lived in California last summer and I edited like a madman. Also, not all the questions are about just having edits. Sargun03:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
RE: WP TEST
Yes there is a discussion an the project page but all I did was copy and paste a revision without the fake score. Other than that I didn't change anything. Feel free to revert or rework the section. --ROASTYTOAST15:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The page was getting kind of heavy, I just figured I'd clear some off. You can put it back or put yours back if you want; it is after all, your page just as much as mine. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 19:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You left the following comment at the article PageName:
"Pagename is a rediect to Dummy target. Why isn't this one?"
The answer is that wikipedia article titles are case sensitive. Thus, Pagename and PageName are entirely different articles. Another example is PANDORA (all caps), which re-directs to the Pandora Archive, and Pandora (first letter caps), which sends you to the article about the Greek mythological figure.
Hi. I'm kind of confused about the edits procedure, proposed by you. If a motto has several edits, is the one with the most supports approved, and the other ones rejected? Also, are mottos with too few votes always reopened, even if it's one of several edits? Were there any mottos that were rejected and forgotten even with too few votes? Also, is there an archive for past mottos? I really think the mottos should be archived, or at least removed from the in review section, if it's already on the nominations page. This is because if the in review section is too long, it can cause browser problems, but the nominations page can be edited over several sections. This problem hasn't occured before, did some rule about it change? Also, great job with everything else on MOTD. PS. I created the motd star. Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, first off, the most common way to close an edit is to approve only one and reject the other versions. This is because consensus usually favors one over the other, and they're usually so similar that approving two versions would violate the rule of duplicate mottos. However, as in the case of this nomination, some edits may be approved in addition to their original nomination. In that case, the "edits", if you can call them that, we different enough from the original nomination that they all were approved.
Next, about approving edits with too few votes, as long as one of the versions has gained enough support to be approved, the other versions may be rejected, even if they haven't received enough votes. The only time they would be reopened is if none of the versions had received enough votes to determine consensus. If that were the case, the entire nomination, edits and all, would be copied back into the "In review" section.
I don't know of any (recent) mottos that were rejected and forgotten even with too few votes. I know of one mass closing by User:Vanderdecken, which essentially created the Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 2 page, in which he was forced to either make a decision based on the 1 or 2 votes, if any, or reopen nearly all of them. Of course, that was back when MOTD had Overseers... But now, I think nominations are receiving enough votes that most are either approved or rejected. You can take a look at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 4 for my recent mass closing, and to see some of my reasons for rejecting mottos. Most of the time it was because of a unanimous oppose or because there were strong opinions on both sides, and therefore no consensus (even with enough votes).
The "In review" section is merely a subpage for the current mottos, and is transcluded to the nominations page, so no duplicates should exist. The nominations page essentially acts to display all of the current nominations, with its three sections ("In review", "Awaiting decision", and "Decisions to be acted on"). The In review subpage was initially created by User:Geo.plrd, with the reason, In review allows for speedy archiving. (discussion).
I think that covered most of your questions. Contact me further if you need more detail, or if I interpreted one of your questions wrongly. --Tewy23:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Reply. Hi. Thanks for answering my questions so thouroughly, and yes, you did answer practically all my questions. I could still not find a direct reason why the in review page is being so large, I thinkit is because of your mass reopenings and closings, and the huge number of mottos. I am beginning to resee mottos already forgotten for weeks. I don't really mind the page being so large, I think my browser can handle it. I guess the problem is,some mottos are so boring or unpopular, people are not paying attention to them, not even enough to oppose on its boringness. Anyway, thanks again. Bye for now. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it's the combination of a large number of nominations with a small number of votes. That leads to more reopenings, which only compound the problem. And yes, I've noticed that many people don't vote on bland or just plain bad mottos. The unanimous opposes are usually only for obscene and offensive mottos. --Tewy01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've revised the procedures on the nominations page, to address some of the "FAQs" on my talk page, but you can revise them further if there's a part that might confuse someone. --Tewy04:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Score
Greetings AstroHurricane001!
Please read the message I have put at the bottom as a reply to the accusations from several people (here). Thank you for your interest in this matter. It is nice to know that there are hardworking Wikipedians who believe in fairness and no-cheating(as I do).
