User talk:CrazyC83/archive1

Hi

Would appreciate your help explaining activity of storms plus the infobox in the hurricane article to User:Tcatron565. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 03:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The guy tried to put "Hurricane Wilma still active, season still active" in "Last storm dissipated". -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 03:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes

You seem to have a lot of good ideas on this article. If you could talk to me directly about them instead of leaving messages on the discussion pages, I could advise you much more quickly. I see you added the 1919 storm. I had that in my original Microsoft Word version but removed it to shorten the article. Another reason I removed it was because most of the damage was done outside of Florida (the main focus of both articles). I take it you noticed the 1900-1960 article has fewer storms than the 1961-present article. Hurricane King or Hurricane Easy (both 1950 might be a better addition. Both did most of their damage in Florida and it was a good amount of damage too. I was just looking for sections to remove to shorten the article and these did the least damage of all the ones I had. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 21:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to the talk page, because I felt it wasn't notable enough in Florida to warrent its own section. It is otherwise a well written section, so I posted it on the talk page. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 22:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it should be put up for a broad vote there. CrazyC83 22:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy C, I don't want you to get the impression that I'm dominating the article. If you have suggestions for changes, run them by me and I'll look at it from an authorial standpoint (being an aspiring author myself) and give you feedback. I'm not trying to dominate the article. My philosophy for them is explained on one of the 2 talk pages. Your ideas are good, they just need tweaking. And I'm here to help tweak. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for helping out with the Southern Indiana Tornado article. I am originally from Evansville so this one literally hit home with me. After this hurricane season, (not to mention going through Ivan and Dennis), I need a break from Mother Nature. :) --Holderca1 16:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, first heard about it when my mom called about 2 minutes after I crawled out bed. I was a bit surprised that an article hadn't already existed, searched the recently created articles back to when the tornado touched down and no articles. --Holderca1 16:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there was another tornado in Munfordville, Kentucky, but no fatalities associated with it. Not sure if it yet warrants being moved since there is just the one deadly tornado and the only one to have any sort of notability at this point.--Holderca1 17:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Tornado Events Articles

I see you have added an infobox now to the Super Outbreak page. Good job there and on the Evansville tornado outbreak page. As I said in reply to you in the talk page, lots of information (as much as is on the Evansville page and even more in many cases) is available. I'm willing to collaborate on improving the tornado pages with infoboxes, more info on specific tornadoes of outbreaks, as well as various other improvements. Evolauxia 20:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're interested in doing this. Hopefully there will be enough willing and able collaborators to make it worth while. Thanks for your work so far; I reiterate that wind speeds should NOT be included in the infobox or individual tornado table. Evolauxia 14:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it correct, it's totally unjustified and not something that should be perpetuated by Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. Ask a NWS meteorologist if they really can say that those exact speeds are known and they would say no. NSSL, SPC, researchers, Fujita, Grazulis, etc. would tell you the same and it is very well reflected in the literature. Given that *some* NWS offices do unfortunately post this information, here a couple of authoritative online sources in support of my position:

http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/mesoscale/tornado.htm

"The F-scale is to be used with great caution. Tornado wind speeds are still largely unknown; and the wind speeds on the F-scale have never been scientifically tested and proven. Different winds may be needed to cause the same damage depending on how well-built a structure is, wind direction, wind duration, battering by flying debris, and a bunch of other factors."

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/#f-scale1

"Tornado wind speeds are still largely unknown; and the wind speeds on the original F-scale have never been scientifically tested and proven. Different winds may be needed to cause the same damage depending on how well-built a structure is, wind direction, wind duration, battering by flying debris, and a bunch of other factors. Also, the process of rating the damage itself is largely a judgment call -- quite inconsistent and arbitrary (Doswell and Burgess, 1988). Even meteorologists and engineers highly experienced in damage survey techniques often came up with different F-scale ratings for the same damage."

"So if the original F-scale winds are just guesses, why are they so specific? Excellent question. Those winds were arbitrarily attached to the damage scale based on 12-step mathematical interpolation between the hurricane criteria of the Beaufort wind scale, and the threshold for Mach 1 (738 mph). Though the F-scale actually peaks at F12 (Mach 1), only F1 through F5 are used in practice, with F0 attached for tornadoes of winds weaker than hurricane force. Again, F-scale wind-to-damage relationships are untested, unknown and purely hypothetical. They have never been proven and may not represent real tornadoes. F-scale winds should not be taken literally."

Please have an understanding of what you're posting; I'm offering info as a good faith effort to help give sourcing and avenues of pursuit for further information. Evolauxia 18:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; and thanks again for making the table, I have to be a stickler on the wind speed issue but do appreciate the effort and what the table adds to the articles. Evolauxia 19:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

216.221.81.98

I was wondering if you could cast any light on IP address 216.221.81.98, from which you seem sometimes to have edited when you failed to log in. There's been a lot of vandalism from that address. Is it at a school, or is it just randomly assigned by an ISP, or don't you know? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. – Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Federal election numbers

Hi, I was wondering why you reverted the update of the party numbers? I was moving the grid over to reflect Official Elections Canada nominations --Cloveious 20:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by the numbers at the party websites that were previously there, which should be mentioned. CrazyC83 20:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for updating the official numbers, and putting the party nominated numbers in brackets It looks good. I haven't had much time over the past few days, and I apoligize if I came across a little hostile. --Cloveious 06:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005 A.H. Season Sandbox

Thanks for correcting my errors, can you help me get pictures up for them. Because there's one for every storm now.Thanks again.These pictures arent going right. User:HurricaneCraze32

infobox hurricane nopic

I'm kindof confused. I changed {{infobox hurricane}} to handle no having a picture, changed all {{infobox hurricane nopic}} to use the regular infobox, and changed the nopic to be deprecated. I was careful to check all "what links here" to make sure no users of the nopic were left. But now I see there are some nopic variants left (like Cyclone Ada which you just fixed). How can we find them? Jdorje 02:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shift them back, that's all I can think of? CrazyC83 02:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Test articles

Good work. As long as the test articles aren't going to be around for too long, I think the categories should remain. And I'll copyedit any other storms you write. Jdorje 03:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Don't use so much passive tense. Don't say "the hurricane would then dissipate", say "the hurricane dissipated". Jdorje 03:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be a bloody argument when it comes time to propose inclusion of these. However it's way overdue...the 2005 season article is up to 80k in size, and people (well, one person) are complaining that it loads too slowly. Jdorje 03:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes time to publish these, you should move them not just copy them over so that we don't lose the edit history. This may require the help of an admin to delete the redirect articles already in place. Jdorje 03:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you'll have to find an admin to delete the old redirects. Is there enough support for the new articles that they won't be immediately redirected back? I hope so... Jdorje 17:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn you!

You beat me by 15 seconds on Tropical Storm Zeta! Nice job though.... I need to get quicker with my edits.... Bsd987 17:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta "record"

Will you please stop running around to all these different article and inserting records that aren't confirmed yet? Turns out Zeta and Alice are tied [1]. NHC also hints that that may not even be true. Lets leave original research out of Wikipedia please. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about List of notable tropical cyclones, where you actually uncorrected yourself [2] (I've done that before); and Hurricane Alice [3]. And I'm not saying I want to string you up, I'm just saying fact-check first. Wait for confirmation, it can be rewarding. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New England hurricanes

I noticed you added new regional categories for many states north of NC. I had originally thought the New England category could be a blanket for Virginia northward. However if you want to split it up into per-state categories, that's fine, but then the New England category article and many articles categorized in it will have to be fixed. See Category:New England hurricanes. Jdorje 21:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I created just one category: since the region is pretty small, there are few hurricanes affecting it, and most of them affect many of the states in that region. However it can work either way; we just need to be consistent with it. A similar problem is with Category:Hurricanes in Canada; on List of notable tropical cyclones there was a separate list of Nova Scotia hurricanes which just seems wrong. However if there were a west-cost Canadian hurricane it would fit into this category too!

Maybe the solution is to give structure to the entirety of Category:Tropical cyclones by region. There can be a Category:Hurricanes in the United States which has each state as its sub-category. This would help solve some problems in that Category:New England hurricanes has to be a sub-category of the history categories for each state in New England. Jdorje 21:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You helped choose {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} as this week's WP:ACID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

Articles for every storm

I was under the impression that 2005 would, and that would be it. You can't be serious about going backwards. It's simply not needed. 2004 at the absolute most, but I personally think there's no point going back very far. Hurricanehink 03:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My criteria would be that any season whose page is too long (over 35 kilobytes, or too long to load, or some other criteria) should be split up. 2004 barely qualifies I think. Jdorje 03:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's sounds good. While back to 1995 would be doable, I just don't think it is necessary. Most of the landfalling storms already have articles or a well-written section on the seasonal article. Any storms post-2005 is fine with me for an article. Hurricanehink 03:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But some storms in that time period would be a waste. Ana, Claudette, Fabian, and Grace from 1997, Chris from 2000, Lorenzo from 2001. You have to admit the Erika article is horrible, for example. Just merge it so we don't have a short article until we eventually want one for all of them. Hurricanehink 12:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Incomplete data" for pressures

You've added an "incomplete data" qualifier for the pressures for some storms. But what is the criteria for this? Basically every storm before 1998 (when dropsondes were first used heavily) has incomplete data for pressure. Older storms whose pressure was only measured at landfall are even more incomplete, of course. Even modern hurricanes have slightly incomplete data since the pressure is only measured at 3-hour or 6-hour intervals. Wilma's minimum pressure was 882 mbar, but who's to say it didn't get down to 881 millibar in between measurements? Of course the uncertainty in wind speed is even greater, since pre-1998 values were all estimates based on flight-level measurements, which is even more inaccurate. When you come to typhoons and cyclones, the uncertainty is even greater since the data is usually just estimated from satellite pictures! Basically I'm just not sure how we should best present all this information. When it comes down to it all values are basically estimates; the only difference is in how accurate we believe the estimate to be. Jdorje 18:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at the best-track data, which is at s:Atlantic hurricane best track. It includes pressure measurements for each data point for some storms. This makes it clear when the measurement is actually incomplete. Jdorje 19:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After noticing how some other articles do it I think it's better to use ≤ in this case. See Hurricane Dog (1950). Jdorje 19:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Claudette (1979)

Good luck with making the article. Just be sure to reiterate the rainfall amounts. This is one of the few deserving articles left. Also as a heads up, there's no satellite image for the storm. Have fun. Hurricanehink 20:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TD capitalization?

Why Subtropical Depression Twenty-two and not Subtropical Depression Twenty-Two? Surely the Two should also be capitalized? Or is Twenty-two one word? Jdorje 03:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP!

Enough with the storm articles! I've had it! Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. I've said this time and time again, and yet I'm ignored. If you can't already tell, I'm quite irritated right now. Why in Hell would you create an article on Tropical Depression Nineteen, that never became a storm, and never came close to hitting land? These articles add NO value whatsoever. I've heard blips about you trying articles for every storm for every recent season and all in the future. I will NEVER agree to that. It is the most revolting idea I've heard since I joined Wikipedia. Why duplicate what is already said in the main article? I've read the articles and they have little or no additional information than what is said in the main article. The main article's job is to talk about those menial storms and give summeries of the ones that do deserve seperate articles. Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Jose, Lee, Maria, Nate, Philippe, Tammy, Delta, and the depressions DO NOT deserve articles. Why would you think that they do? Most of them did next to nothing. An article needs substance, those storms offer nothing but hardtack. Why create an aricle just so you could cram every bit of menial, tedious and unhelpful facts you can find into it? So please stop at least for a moment so we can talk it out, because I don't want an edit war. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to agree with him on this one. There's no need to say one thing at two separate places. Detail is fine, but when you only elaborate a lot more on storm history and other stats, there's really no need to make an article on it. Just because it's new, doesn't mean it should have an article on it. Hurricanehink 12:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

storms article

I still believe having one article per storm is a much better way to create daughter articles than 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms is, but only by showing what the 2005 article could be if it was much more compact will we be able to bring people around to moving information out of it. Jdorje 04:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you should take a look at Straw Poll #2 again at Talk:2005AHS, because it still seems like you voted for the wrong option. (You voted for returning to the way things were originally, with most information in 2005AHS and not in individual articles, which removes the need for the individual articles. It looks like we're going to go backwards from the consensus if any of poll #2 to that of #1.) --AySz88^-^ 21:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy

There was no consensus keep. On the talk page vote, majority was merge but no consensus was reached. Therefore a merge notice is still warrented. Just because it passed a Vfd doesn't mean it shouldn't be merged. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 02:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements=

There is now an article called Endorsements in the Canadian federal election, 2006. If you agree, I will merge Newspaper endorsements in the Canadian federal election, 2006 by putting the list of newspaper endorsements at the top of the article, followed by the list of other organizations and individuals, removing the duplicate entries from the latter. Ground Zero | t 16:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Thanks for helping me.You have MSN IM?We can chat there.HurricaneCraze32 22:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Article

I've fixed the Hurricane Kyle (2002) article and added more infomation. Also I made a list of names to replaced the names retired from the 2005 and 2006 Atlantic hurricane season naming lists. Storm05 20:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-nominal titles

Hi. I noticed that you added the pre-nominal "Right Honourable" in the Stephen Harper article. Wikipedia style for biographies does not include such honorifics in the initial text. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies):

(2) Styles and honorifics which are derived from political activities, including but not limited to The Right Honourable for being a Member of the Privy Council, shall not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper.  --JGGardiner 17:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"formed"

We need to decide what it means for a storm to be "formed". I had always thought this mean to reach tropical storm intensity, i.e., naming, i.e., becoming a "tropical cyclone". But you could also take it from the formation of the tropical depression. Ivan became a depression around 1800 UTC on September 2, but didn't reach storm status (35 knots) until around 600 UTC on September 3.

Then we also have timezone issues...I guess all timezones should be local to where the storm is, although this makes some conversions really tricky. And since the best-track gives only 6-hour intervals we might still be off by a day if the storm actually formed between intervals.

A similar question applies to dissipation. — jdorje (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage on FAC

I have nominated the article Same-sex marriage in Canada as a feature article. Ardenn 19:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]