User talk:Hurricanehink/Archive 12

Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Pacific hurricanes

It's five minutes to 2008 here in BC so I guess I have a few minutes to spare. I have just nominated list of Pacific hurricanes for peer review.

Your contest mentions that articles to be nominated must either be on a candidates page or on PR by 2008. It also says they must be articles. I'll let you decide if a list is eligible. If its is, I am entering this into the contest/competition. If it isn't, that's fine with me and nothing bad will happen.

Thanks, Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 07:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm fully aware that list of Pacific hurricanes must be on FLC before the end of January. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's now on FLC. Also, to avoid perceptions of canvassing, please do not support it in the nomination discussion. Thanks. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Charley (1986)

Are you really going to create an article on Hurricane Charley (1986), as you indicate? There used to be one, but it was merged. If you're willing to make it your (to call it something) "highest priority future article" I can get it started by reversing the redirection and merger, and then you can work from that. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non breaking spaces

Now all done at Sid Barnes. Thanks for teaching me something new! --Dweller (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you might now support the FAC? --Dweller (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass

Hurricane Daniel (2006) passed as a GA. Well done! See the talk page for subsequent comments. Best regards, Rt. 18:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Rt. 18:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pressures

Um, could you possibly tell me why all the pressures for the 1934 Atlantic hurricane season are showing up as unknown even though I typed pressures in for almost all of them? -- §HurricaneERICarchive 01:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, some idiot typed in the template wrong. I fixed it. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 01:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: No Subject :)

Thank you very much for the barnstar. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that link to...

Hey, what was the name of that list of articles that link to List of retired Atlantic hurricane names? I wanted to finish fixing those links, but I can't find that list. Juliancolton (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg (1999)

How urgent is that future creation going to happen? I just noticed on your page that you were intending to make one. I have a mostly-complete plaintext on my computer I can Copy and Paste into a sandbox if you don't mind. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galveston Hurricane of 1900

Hi there. This article is at the Featured article review, here. I was wondering if you might comment on whether it should keep or lose FA status. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Tropical Storm Cristobal (2002)

Nah, I don't mind. It looks good. Juliancolton (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Daisy (1962)

Would you mind taking a look at Hurricane Daisy (1962), my newly publisher article? It has been assessed, but only as Start. :( Juliancolton (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To continue our crazy article creating spree

Here is my newest article. It took me a few hours to put together, and was wondering if it could be assessed. If you're wondering why I'm not on IRC at all today, its because I'm having IRC trouble.^Mitch32^contribs 00:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Newsletter

It looks good. What I wanted to ask is where can I help out making the next issues? Juliancolton (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, BTW, I worked on Darby the best I could, but I don't think it is large enough to publish. Thoughts? Juliancolton (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just one more thing-does the preparation need to be a seperate section? Juliancolton (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Hmm, I can't find any more info, and the newspaper archive site isn't working. I don't think I am going to publish this one. Juliancolton (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, why are there so many new articles lately? Juliancolton (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used the advisories for Darby, and I still don't think it is long enough. Tell me what you think, though. Juliancolton (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, too bad. I wanted to write a pacific hurricane article. Juliancolton (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTD

In the last month, you have created a new WP:FL. From what I can tell, you are a veteran and have produced others in the past. Congratulations! I also see you have nominated an LOTDC this month. This is your official reminder that your votes are needed. Please participate in the voting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in the WP:LOTD. Your nominee List of snow events in Florida has been selected to be a February WP:LOTD. If you have any particular date preferences please contact me by January 24th. Note that since it finished in the top six will appear twice as a WP:LOTD during the month.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Florida hurricanes table

The 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane article states that the hurricane moved ashore "between Jupiter and Boca Raton" with estimated winds of 150 mph (130 kts). Additionally, the hurricane's minimum central pressure of 929 mbar (27.43 inHg) was measured over land at West Palm Beach, according to the MWR. The best track indicates a pressure of 929 mbar in accordance with 150 mph winds shortly prior to landfall, so I think it is correct to utilize that fix as the landfall estimate. It would be consistent with the article, too. I must conclude that the best track's time frame is incorrect, thus bringing the hurricane over Florida later than reality. CVW (Talk) 17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the source to the article and I fixed multiple errors. Do you think that works? CVW (Talk) 18:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source that supports 130 kts at Florida landfall. This reanalysis study lists a landfall intensity of 130 kts and 929 mbar. Feel free to ask for additional information. CVW (Talk) 18:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Inigo

On 13 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cyclone Inigo, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dennis 99

Thanks! I appreciate it! Good to be back on activity. Sadly, my Alma article is getting shafted because the Hurricane Archives are down on my end. To make up for it, I ended up doing a last-minute hurricane article (Elida of 02) simply because there were no entries for it on that site. Like Nina, it's a single-edit job with no sandbox phase. Consider it an apology for the downtime on Hurricane Archives. Jake52 My island 06:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm...well, to be fair, it's not like I'm piqued for the article, but I will help out when necessary. Personally, I was thinking about helping out with Felice while juggling another article idea for the future (Linda of 97...the typhoon, not the hurricane). Speaking of, there's something that's bugging me about Ty. Linda. The seasonal article (and a few sources) give about 200-300 deaths for it, yet a news article on Hurricane Archives and a chart for deadly natural disasters on a French page (the page dealt with Malpasset Dam, not a cyclone) both list a final death toll of a decidedly larger 3,840 (on a side note, the Malpasset page had "Gorky" as the name for the 91 cyclone in Bangladesh). Similar discrepancies exist for how much damaged the cyclone caused (the primary figure is 1/5 to 1/2 billion dollars in 1997 US). Any idea which of these figures is true? I never like the prospect of running headlong into articles without making sure my calculations are just right. (And thanks for the compliment on Elida and the haiku! :) ) Jake52 My island 05:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

Please look at this diff. It never hurts to have a fatter awards section :) Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intensity discrepancies between HURDAT and NHC data

...are really beginning to bother me. Carol, Hazel, Gracie, Beulah, Betsy in Louisiana, Frederic, a storm in 1940, Hilda (1964), a 1918 storm, Louisiana 1926, Connie (1955), 1899 storm in Puerto Rico, Indianola 1886 storm (it says it was a 2!), and this is all just on one table! But these errors are repeated on other NHC charts. Iniki is wrong on one table but on another it's listed correctly, 1944 Great Atlantic is also conflicting...the list goes on and on, it's nuts. What is the deal here? They made HURDAT, why should the tables say anything different? If there was something they noticed in any kind of reanalysis and it affected the storm's peak intensity, HURDAT would reflect that. Perhaps not so much at landfall (Erin, 1995) but there would have to be a documentation of reanalysis data that affects landfall intensity. All I'm seeing is a bunch of charts with vastly different info and only categories listed. It's friggin' confusing and it's starting to affect our articles. Should we fire a WTF their direction and let them know the severity of the discrepancy? I think this is something that should be brought to their attention. It's all on this report -- §HurricaneERICarchive 01:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the storm can't have two intensities at once. Where doth the truth lie? -- §HurricaneERICarchive 02:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But all the NHC pages I've seen only list a Category, they don't give actual wind speeds. We need an exact wind speed, not a range. The link you gave me says that nothing between 1914 and 1979 is official. If that's true, then we need to go with whatever credible source gives us a wind speed. The Hurricane Research Division, who I believe are running the re-analysis program that is re-writing "official", gives us that. We can't just see "Category: 3" on an NHC chart and type down 115 mph 1-min sustained in the articles. We can say that re-analysis is on-going and intensities may change, but we need something concrete right now. Perhaps in articles that list only Categories can we use the NHC listings, which, by their own admission (see above), are unofficial too. Those are provisionary, pre-re-analysis designations. I have to side with HURDAT at this point, simply based on specifics. Does HURDAT have errors? Unquestionably, but they are generally reliable and they give specific intensities that give a better idea of the storm's true intensity at given points in its history. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 03:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can post it there if you like. The heading in the NHC archive page for the Best Track data says "Hurricane Best Track Files (HURDAT)". It says the same stuff. This data gives exact wind speeds. "Greater than thus and such" is suffocatingly vague and I'd hate to use it when we have the exact, pre-re-analysis windspeeds here. 1954 (for example) has not been re-analyzed. We can't write articles based on preliminary information or unfinished research. It would be like looking at NHC's note that a July, 2006 storm was being looked at to see if it was a tropical cyclone and then writing a section for it in 2006 AHS without any further information. What we can do is write in the articles that preliminary re-analysis indicates that (I'll use Carol as an example) Hurricane Carol was in fact a major hurricane. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the preliminary data names a probable wind speed (95 knots, 65 knots...etc) for any changes, I feel uncomfortable using it. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 23:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a change in category, you need a windspeed, especially if you're talking about peak intensity or landfall intensity. I stand by that fairly steadfastly. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 01:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can. I've had my say, I probably won't take part. I may not like what they have to say. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 21:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclones outside of the Atlantic

Sorry to bother you again, but I want to start on that WPAC typhoon, or a NIO storm, but I don't know where the official archives are in those places. Thanks. Juliancolton (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I will do the pacifc typhoon article first. Yes, I am finished with Putnam, now I am just waiting for the GAN to pass. Juliancolton (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, do south west Indian Ocean cyclones have TCRs? Juliancolton (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, there is not alot of damage info for storms outside of the NHC, so is there a pacific storm that was notable, or is there an article that I should try to improve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliancolton (talk • contribs) 14:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article for me to work on that I can't mess up too bad? ;) Juliancolton (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I am flooding your talk page with questions, but at the WP:METEO, we are going to do as the WPTC did, and see how many members are still active. I was wondering if I could use your message {{User:Hurricanehink/Active}}, adjusted, of course, to apply to the WP:METEO. Juliancolton (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any warning archives for a WPac typhoon in 2004, other than the WMO which I can't find the TC section of? Juliancolton (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I found damage reports, but no warning archives. Juliancolton (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't know how it would be possible to write a good storm history with no warning archives, or even a tropical cyclone summary, so I may just do an atlantic or EPac storm. Anything in particular you want me to write? Juliancolton (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would be just as happy to rewrite an existing article that is really bad. Juliancolton (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that if I can, but I have already started a project in my sandbox. List of Category 5 Australian Region cyclones-What do you think? It would be in the Australian scale, of course. Juliancolton (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I know how it works. I am going to use the Australian best track for a source, but I have one problem. How do I decode this, or something similar to it? --200208PTHSINIGO 200304040600H4DS13111524 900 675WW 62846311 21339 8331 4 51339 83? Juliancolton (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really on subject with the sub-header title, but I didn't want to clutter your talk page. Anyway, my craving for trying to get a season articles is growing; do you mind if I try to do something with the messy 2000 Atlantic hurricane season? If so, I will probobly do a format similar to 2005 and 2003. Juliancolton (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Australian cat. 5's, I think the idea sounded better before I tried it. I may still do it, though. And as for the hurricane season, I have already started re-writing the 2000 hurricane season, but if you think 2006 would be better, than I will abandon 2000. Juliancolton (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, I agree. The 2000 was going to be too much for me to do, anyway, especially because there is nothing to base the List of storms article with; with the 2006 season, I can copy and paste the storm list I have, and then add references and such. Anyway, is there anything particularly important when rewriting a season article? Juliancolton (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Should I just put a brief description about the storm in the storms section, and then include impact in a seperate section? Juliancolton (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I though Mitch told you. He wanted me to leave for a couple months, because I was bothering everybody. If you want (it will give me a good excuse if you do ;) I will come there. Juliancolton (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So no? Oh well, I guess I will have to waste wikipedia's bandwith. ;) I thought it would be a good idea for me to go on the IRC, and you could explain to me how not to screw up the 2006 AHS. ;) Juliancolton (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should there have been a ;) after that? :) Juliancolton (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 17 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hurricane Kenneth (2005), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:METEO Active members

User:Juliancolton/Active

WPTC convert

Its not ready yet. ---CWY2190^T^C 03:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 6

File:LOVE Park fountain.jpg

You're invited to the
Sixth Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup
January 2008
Time: January 26th, 5:00 PM
Location: The Marathon Grill, 10th and Walnut

RSVP

(view/edit this template)

You have received this message because you are on the invite list, you may change your invite options via that link. BrownBot (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Cyclone Elita

On 23 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cyclone Elita, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Blockbuster project

I suck at keeping secrets. Several people have asked if I'd ever put the Hurricane Hall of Fame online. Those people are finally going to get their wish. I'm turning it into probably the biggest project I've ever undertaken for a Wikipedia related page...and it's not even in the article namespace (duh)! I hope the WikiGods will let me have two more pages linked off my userpage. One of the ones I have may have to go. It'd be worth it; the Hall of Fame pages may hold my best writing, writing that could never make it to the actual articles due to POV issues. Each Inductee gets its own write-up. I should be finished in about a week. Here's a sneak peek with one of my favorites:

This used to be a three-story apartment complex. It was left in ruins by Camille. 30 people died here.

• Hurricane Camille, 1969 - In terms of raw, destructive power, Camille was probably the strongest Atlantic hurricane of all time. At flight level, the Hurricane Hunters were regularly getting sustained winds well in excess of 200 mph. On the afternoon of August 17, a Hurricane Hunter estimated gusts approaching 210 mph. Mechanical problems forced the plane to leave soon after. Pressures were still falling a bit after this reading and it's possible Camille was stronger. It's estimated that sustained winds at the surface were at or near 200 mph at peak intensity. It was so powerful that on the satellite images, it appears to be on the verge of tearing itself apart. The storm's inner eyewall was sunken like a crater churning the powerful outer eyewall like the axiom of Hell. Camille hardly weakened at all before it slammed into the Mississippi coast near Bay St. Louis with sustained winds of around 190 mph. All wind instruments near the coast were destroyed by the storm, so how powerful Camille really was at landfall may never be known. Columbia, Mississippi reported 120 mph sustained winds 75 miles inland! A storm surge 24 feet high was thrown onto the shore. Miles and miles of shoreline were completely destroyed. In many places, there wasn't even wreckage; just concrete foundations. Large, strong antebellum homes that had withstood many a powerful hurricane were simply gone. This level of destruction continued for several miles inland, gradually leaving a little more behind. Freighters weighing tens of thousands of tons were hurled onto the shore like toys. Inland, torrential rains in the mid-Atlantic states of Pennsylvania and Virginia caused devastating flash floods that engulfed many towns. Some places saw as much 25 inches in just 18 hours. Camille killed 259 people; 143 along the Gulf Coast, 113 in Virginia and 3 in Cuba. This was after a massive evacuation along the coast. Damage totals came to $1.5 billion. It couldn't have been much higher; there was little left to destroy.

A large, antebellum mansion before Camille... and after Camille.

Don't worry too much about my sanity; I love this sh*t! -- §HurricaneERICarchive 01:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to think about the death toll as more than a number as I'm writing it. I see 3,000 deaths and go "God, that sucks" and then move on. If you put deeper thought into it, it starts to wear you down emotionally. Stalin once said, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." As cold as it sounds, he's kinda right. 18,000 dead people (a la Mitch) is really hard to wrap your mind around and it can really mess you up. So try not to think of it like that. What actually hits me more than anything as I write stuff like that is the shear power of the storms. Camille left nothing behind. A chunk of wall here, a cinder block there. It looked like a 40 mile wide F4 tornado had come through. 25-foot storm surges that wipe away entire towns where people had spent 20+ years of their lives. Tens of thousands who lost everything in just a single day. Everything they'd ever known was gone just like that. It humbles you. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's hard, but I try to seperate myself from the human aspect of it. I don't know those people. I can't relate to their suffering. I respect the tragedy and the loss and the impact does hit me, but I don't let it get to me. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 23:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hink. Man that article's good! -- §HurricaneERICarchive 21:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the amount of work you put into it is spectacular. Good show, mate! Good show! -- §HurricaneERICarchive 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am stunned by how little information there is on the impact of Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne in the US, especially Frances. I've been inferring and generallizing my ass off to get her section to a respectable length. You'd think in the modern era such information would be easy to come by. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 01:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant not only on Wikipedia but everywhere. There's just surprisingly little community specific information. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, don't worry about Jeanne too much. The US section could be expanded a little bit but that's already been requested. Kiss this page goodbye. I'm requesting its deletion to make way for the Hall of Fame pages. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 20:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only got two left. I'm finishing up the big one right now. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 22:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So far, I've been successful in keeping the word count below 400. Only two sections have exceeded. Even so, the pages are still going to be quite large. I don't know how large is "too large". Combined, the Hall of Fame will likely be over 150 KB (hence why they're broken up). I shouldn't need a third page though. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 23:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the size of both pages combined. Neither will be above 100 KB by itself. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 18:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. If I broke them off into two seperate pages (which I plan to do), neither one of those pages would be longer than 100 KB by themselves, but together they're huge. Page 1 (now finished) is 76 KB (according to Word) and Page 2 is 70 KB with Rita and Wilma still to go. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 18:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did a lot of good research and we can use some of it in the articles. I hope the WikiGods'll let me keep 'em. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 19:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I could do if the WikiGods say "Not so much" is move it to the Hurricanes Wikia. That's a more forum style atmosphere with less restrictions. The reason I didn't put it there from the get go was that all the links would be external and they create alot of annoying spacing problems and always have the little boxes off to the side. Also, I don't know how I could have the images there since they're all stored in Wikipedia. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 22:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Hurricane Hall of Fame! It's actually not nearly as large as I feared; both pages combined are less than 90 KB (according to the bars at the top of the pages). I broke it into two pages anyway. Hopefully the WikiGods will let me keep this one, I'm very pleased with it. That's some of my best research and some of my best writing right there. We can certainly use a lot of the information in the articles, especially for the older storms/seasons. I hope you like it. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 01:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The pictures don't do that on my computer. I have noticed that Wikipedia doesn't automatically adjust to fit a screen and that has created some problems (my desktop bumps the Countdown to Graduation template on my user page to 2 lines). I'm sorry it turned out that way for you. If you notice in the header, the requirements include "Has to have formed after 1800". I understand your point, but the reason I did this is that that long ago, forecasting technology was almost nonexistant. There weren't even real forecasters back then; no experts that could warn people "Hey, there's a big-ass storm coming." On top of that, the structures of the day were often flimsy wood houses at best. Consequently, the impact is dramatically inflated. Even going back to 1800 is pushing it. It's just not fair to more recent hurricanes operating in a modern world to have to be pitted against storms that almost constantly had the element of surprise. Psychological impact is also a big factor. Remember, time heals all wounds. When even locals have no idea what storm you're talking about, the word "fame" has a hard time applying. 2008 promises to be a big year. I had to lower the throw-in standards just so I could get to some storms that might actually make it a contest. I plan on expanding voters this year beyond just you and me. Guys like Cyclone 1, Bob rulz, jdorje, Tom, Rattleman, thegreatdr are all high on my list. I may hold a month-long general poll and the top 5 with the most votes are in (you and I can break a tie for the bottom spot with a consensus). But don't worry about the voting until mid June. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the late response, I was out of town over the weekend. I had planned to do a kind of Veterans Committee vote for storms between 1800 and 1874. The 1780 storm may earn a special exception. As for global storms, I don't really know how to attack that. I think they should be listed with the Atlantic storms (not on my online version though) but there's a lot of competition in the Atlantic already and I think it would be unfair to force ATL storms (many of which are over 50 years old) to compete against international storms from records that only go back to 1945. The EPAC is rather dull. The only storms worthy of immediate consideration that I can think of are Pauline, Paul, Liza, Iniki, and 1959 Mexico. For WPAC, I think it would be better to look at it from a broader perspective; how great was the overall social and economic impact. In Asia, 250 deaths and a few small villages washed away is much easier to recover to overcome than a disaster on the scale of Nina (1975), Lola (1993) or Thelma. As for the rest of the world, Catarina should be in there. In the Indian Ocean, we'd need to be very choosy. Disasters like Sidr are all too common in that part of the world. And the Southern Hemisphere is a whole 'nother paragraph for a whole 'nother day. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 22:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

01A, 02B, Kesiny, and Errol

I was thinking about putting on backlog an article on these four cyclones (the May 2002 Indian Ocean Quadruplets), but I'm not sure if such an article could be encyclopediac without looking like a compilation. The main reason I want to do it is because of these, only two (01A and Kesiny) have even remotely enough info for separate articles. What do you think? Jake52 My island 06:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...well, it's a unique idea and could work, but you have to decide how to list the cyclones. The best way to do that, I think, is chronologically (for instance, in 2002, the first cyclone world-wide was Cyclone Bernie in the Australian region, but including cross-over storms, the first cyclone would be Cyprien. The last one would be Waka.). Also, separate basin articles could still exist, so you'd need a way to fix that. My intuition into that is to tweak our standard Infobox Hurricane Small template to have an additional slot for the season. I tweaked it accordingly and my separate page for a theoretical one is at User:Jake52/Temp Template:Infobox hurricane small 2. Overall, such a thing could work for us, but before we start, we'd need some way of organizing it. (and on a side note, the cyclone quadruplets were four out of an austere six cyclones to form out of the same source (the Madden-Julian Oscillation). The other two were Hagibis and Alma, neither are twins. So, in total, just one disturbance caused cyclones in FIVE basins (North Indian Ocean, Southwest Indian Ocean, Australian Region (Perth), West Pacific, and East Pacific. Jake52 My island 21:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I'd say that not including unnamed storms would be a good idea, but then again, some unnamed storms are more significant than most named storms in a given year (for example, in 1991, two of the most significant cyclones of the year were the Bangladesh Cyclone (aka Gorky) and the Perfect Storm, neither of which have proper names). As far as I know, there are a few ways we can work this out, such as:

• Have one section detailing named storms and another detailing notable non-named storms.
• Put all unnamed storms in an "Other Storms" section, like on most pages with such.
• Group named storms and unnamed storms that are relatively notable (high death tolls or damages (Bhola and Gorky), unusual features (the South Atlantic cyclones, and 91C of 2006), or record holders (Bhola and Subtropical Storm 1 of 1978 if you plan on Subtropical cyclones too).

Of these, I like the first and the last (the last one I like the most). And about pictures of deadliest or costliest cyclone of the month, that's a pretty good idea. Besides, other than unusual cyclones, most people would want to find out stuff like that. Jake52 My island 04:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not responding soon. I think it would be a easy resolution. My only remaining problem is in the rare case when two identical storm names are used in one year (1997's Hurricane and Typhoon Lindas, both highly notable, or the two "Beni"s that occured simultaneously in the SHem, but that could be ironed out. Maybe we could take a gamble and see how a possible article on yearly cyclones could work out and look. Hurricane Angel Saki My own personal NHC 08:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little help?

The following quote is from the "Climate" section of the Sitakunda Upazila article, which I am trying to prepare for FAC:

An area prone to cyclones and storm surges, Sitakunda has been hit by cyclones and floods in 1964, 1970, 1988, 1991 and 1997.

Ever since I wrote that line, I was looking for an expert on cyclones and storms to improve upon those two lines. Taking a look at your herculean work I belive that I have found the right person. I can guess that you are busy with a myriad things. But, it would it be greatly helpful if you took a look. Would, please (please, please, please) take a look? And, oh, Sitakunda is in Bangladesh by the Bay of Bengal. Aditya^(talk • contribs) 07:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much is there to ask for? I really have little clue. May be a little on each of the successive cyclones, and a bit on the reason. I may be able to collect information on the preparedness they have now. Am I making any sense? Aditya^(talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my experience (which largely came from writing this article) tells me that Sitakunda Upazila and Sitakunda township are both referred to as Sitakunda, and more often than not it about the Upazila, not just the town. I think the floods and cyclones were not just contained in the town, as that would be a near-impossible proposition. Moreover, I remember the floods as part of effect of cyclones (though, I can't locate the source anymore, darn), and therefore it may be appropriate to focus on the cyclones, not the floods. I'll be addressing the the copy issues shortly (mostly leaving it for the final polishing job). Thanks for the encouragement, and, as you have seen through so many FAs, may be want give the article a read through and tell me which other things need fixing (I understand that a non-Bangladeshi reader may have difficulty understanding some parts of the article). Finally, is a there an expert on Indian cyclones who you can call for help? Aditya^(talk • contribs) 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the confusing mention of floods altogether, and have added some stuff to the cyclone section, including a table. I have also removed some of the repeated mention of this region and that region. I have no issues with moving the citations from the lead to appropriate locations, but am dreading the tedious task. I'll get to that later. Copy in the climate section reads bad, as I have expanded it after the wonderful copywriters have worked on the article. Do you still think it needs to be a part of the geography section? Also, do you think the geography section needs expansion? It currently has psychical geography only, as political geography is covered in the administration section. In that section (i.e. administration) I could a add a line or two on each of the unions, or could create an article on Unions of Sitakunda Upazila (a Union is an adminsitrative unit in Bangladesh). What do you think of that? Aditya^(talk • contribs) 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have reduced the number of sections, not just merging geography and climate, but also in other parts of the article. I also have fixed the copy in the climate part. It has four parts now - (1) cyclone risk and preparedness, (2) the mangrove forest planted to reduce cyclone impact, (3) wind and windspeed, and (4) the table, now reformatted. I do agree that the article is a bit too long. May be you can help me to chop the article down a bit, and not just this section. Just one worry, I tried not to put anything trivial into the article, though copyrighting or organization may have made some look like trivia. If you identify some of the trivia that may be removed as an outside observer I can address it better (either removing or better integrating the stuff, as necessary). Thanks, again. Aditya^(talk • contribs) 10:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Person to Explain This Gets A Cookie

I wanted to separate this into a new section so it didn't clog up the 2002 cyclones. While going through the NHC best track data for East Pacific cyclones for my 1968 hurricane season article, I find this entry for October 18:

• 07180 10/18/1968 M= 2 18 SNBR= 198 SIMONE XING=1
• 07185 10/18* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0*135 915 45 0*
• 07190 10/19*138 918 45 0*143 922 45 0*147 926 35 0* 0 0 0 0*
• 07195 TS

The reason I'm so baffled is because NHC, JTWC, and Fleet Weather Central ALL listed this storm as just that: a tropical storm. Yet UNISYS and Hurricane.com, two other best track data sites, do not. (And to make matters stranger still, Dolores (1970) and Gwen (1960), both storms downgraded to depressions in post season, are both missing from the NHC best track and UNISYS/Hurricane.com. So why is there no clear consensus on the nature of Simone? Was it a tropical storm (if it was, I believe it holds the record for shortest lived landfalling tropical storm in the East Pacific since reliable recording began (the 68 Summary showed it formed, made landfall, and dissipated within 24 hours) and UNISYS and Hurricane.com were wrong, or was it downgraded and the NHC et al made a mistake? My head hurts. Jake52 My island —Preceding comment was added at 17:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now that that's cleared up, another question. Should the disamg. article for Simone be changed to read that 68's was a tropical storm? (It currently says it was a depression.)Jake52 My island 17:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Simone (1968)

Simone Done. I'll see about updating the others. Should I do all of them? --Ajm^81 17:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isis (1998)

Once I'm done with Flossy (1956), I'll deal with Isis. It should be a snap with very little 1" isohyet. After looking at other research from people at SUNY-Albany and out West, it looks like I won't be able to attribute any rainfall north of the Desert Southwest to Isis as an upper low absorbed its moisture, which then moved north across the West and brought rain to places from the Great Basin northward. Using satellite imagery, it was unclear, so I originally erred on the side of caution. Using the NCEP reanalysis data, the situation become much clearer. It's good that other people are researching the TC rainfall problem, as it acts as a check on my work. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Isis images are on the HPC website. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change

No, it's ok. I simply had it changed because a) a redlinked account called "Jake52 1990" would create confusion, since it has my birth year, and b) I almost never use my real first name in webnames. However, as long as I can keep creating articles, it's alright. Speaking of, I since put out my newest article for Naomi of 1968. Can you think of anything it needs? Hurricane Angel Saki Welcome to my own personal NHC 20:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Elena (1979) GA pass

Thank you for your hard work on Tropical Storm Elena (1979). I have passed this article as a Good article, and updated the various talk page templates to reflect this.

That also means you get one of these:

This user helped promote Tropical Storm Elena (1979) to good article status.

which you may like to place on your user page (or somewhere suitable) by copy/pasting {{User Good Article|Tropical Storm Elena (1979)}} into the page code.

Great job - well done! EyeSerene^TALK 15:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed self from project

I want to personally thank you for your genuine dedication to the WP:TC but I find that every article I look at is a personal conflict of interest to me. Being in a business related to, fed by and governed by Hurricanes I've decided it's in my best interest and the projects to continue not to edit in the project. Still your team does a great job! ♫Slysplace | ^talk 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chilling stat

The 12 hurricanes that struck the US in 2004 and 2005 killed as many as 2,875 people and caused nearly $160 billion in property damage in the US alone, according to Wikipedia's numbers. Wow! I don't guess we needed proof that those two years were among the worst back to back seasons in US history but there it is. In that time, seven major hurricanes struck the US; greater than the total for the previous 17 years...and that's including Hurricane Emily (1993) just because I'm a nice guy. Without her, that number jumps to 19. If this is applicable to any article, I think we should stick it in, because these are powerful stats.

Alex, Charley, Frances, Gaston, Ivan, Jeanne, Cindy, Dennis, Katrina, Ophelia, Rita, and Wilma.

-- §HurricaneERICarchive 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I included the 705 still missing in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and 7 killed by Jeanne in Puerto Rico. (Remember, US only) Alex: 1, Charley: 30, Frances: 47, Gaston: 9, Ivan: 54, Jeanne: 5 (plus 7 in PR), Cindy: 3, Dennis: 15, Katrina: 1,836 (plus 705 still missing), Ophelia: 2, Rita: 120, Wilma: 36. This equals 2,868. I think I put Charley's in as 35 and Rita's in at 122 by mistake. However, even by discounting my additives, you should've come up with 2,156. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

750, don't start rounding on me ;). I don't need to tell you that in disasters that involve large loss of life, many victims are never found. Even in the modern world, that still hasn't changed. Look at Mitch. It's not hard for me to believe that a large number of people could still be missing (and may forever be missing). I don't know if there is a current source for missing persons following the storm, but if it was a year after Katrina or later, I doubt those people could be alive yet missing for that long. If they were alive, they'd find someway to get ahold of their loved ones, given a year's time. -- §HurricaneERICarchive 05:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

The NHC TCR for Tropical Storm Fay (2002) says the storm exsisted from September 5-11. The HPC summary for Fay says September 4-14. Wunderground agrees with the TCR, but Accuweather says the storm lasted from the 8-9. Should I trust the TCR? Juliancolton (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to make things worse, the last advisory was issued on the 8th. :( Juliancolton (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. thanks. Juliancolton (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...

yes i know. i'm sorry i haven't done anything. i just havent found the time. i don't know when i will too. icelandic hurricane #12_(talk) 20:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		From The Signpost: A number of editors continue to expand hurricane related coverage, with four separate topics listed (2003 Atlantic hurricane season, Florida hurricanes, Hurricane Isabel, and Retired Pacific hurricanes). The "number of editors" clearly refers mainly to you. That's why you should get this. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Thanks for keeping things running while I was gone... it's good to see that everything is more or less running smoothly after returning from a break. :) Titoxd^(?!? - cool stuff) 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Actually Shaking With Rage Reading About A Cyclone

While contemplating about new article ideas, I decided to take a breeze by various sources involving the impact of Kesiny of 2002, and I can't believe what I'm reading. While Katrina wasn't the easiest to recover cyclone, its lasting impact had at least a reason (FEMA wasn't organized enough and money was scarce). Kesiny's recovery, however, was marred by nothing more than a political game between Madagascar's former prime minister and the one who was elected after the former (and Kesiny wasn't even a powerful cyclone at all). I very likely will do the Kesiny article, but's it's likely going to become the hardest article I've ever faced, not because of information, but because of POV, but should I try it now or should I wait until I subside while doing three others (Alma, Hernan, and Fausto) and then try taking it on? Hurricane Angel Saki My own personal NHC 00:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WPTC Graphs

As per your request, here they are. They are updated as of the bot run of a few hours ago, and all the graphs are linked from that page. Titoxd^(?!? - cool stuff) 04:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. By the way, you now have the mop. Don't do anything silly with it, ok? Titoxd^(?!? - cool stuff) 05:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Well, what do you think? It's pretty much down to the minor tweaks. Juliancolton ^(The Giants Win!) 18:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least it's better than it was :) Those things seem easy enough. Well, back to work. Juliancolton ^(The Giants Win!) 01:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I am also at a loss as to when to get rid of the ^(The Giants Win!). At least until tommorow, don't you think? ;) Juliancolton ^(The Giants Win!) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I have already done a little. In the mean time, can I start my next project? Juliancolton Talk 00:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've said it needs mor info a day or so ago, I've added almost 4 kb of info. While I know you are going to say it still needs more (I can never make you happy :P), you are welcome to take a look once in a while, and tell me when it is ready. Thanks. Juliancolton (Talk) 01:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what do you think about me sending NY hurricanes to GAN before FLC? I've come across a couple lists that are actually GAs. See Talk:List of counties in Delaware. Juliancolton ^The storm still blows... 15:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Cleo (1958) and Hurricane Easy (1951)

Please feel free to review my latest articles. I could not find more information for Cleo's impact. Overall, I think I have compiled two nice articles. Can you review these works? Feel free to offer suggestions. Thanks! CVW (Talk) 18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the redundant usage of "Cleo" and "Easy" from the articles. All dates are linked in the Cleo article, and the Easy page looks good. I think the improvements are sufficient for GA status. What do you think? Additionally, are you reviewing the Easy article? CVW (Talk) 3:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay–I have fixed most of the issues in both articles. I have Wikilinked the dates, and I fixed the ungrammatical "boat" issue in the Easy article. Look at the edit summaries for each article. I think your concerns have been addressed, so they can be nominated for GA status. What do you think? CVW (Talk) 4:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I responded to your concerns on Easy's talk page. Do you think the Cleo and Easy articles can gain GA status because of my improvements? CVW (Talk) 20:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Erin (2007) and landphoon

Notice Erin's report is still not out, even after 6 months? NHC doesn't know what to call Erin over Oklahoma, though most apparently don't want to call it a tropical storm, despite its obvious tropical character over land and high winds. If it were closer to the coast they'd call it a tropical storm. They're in a quandry, because an alternative term has never been standardized. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a deep warm core system, which alone means it was a tropical cyclone (or land based MCS). Its wind field was also tight, which is a tropical characteristic and by itself rules out subtropical. There were no fronts aloft or nearby that could allow for a subtropical or extratropical distinction. Their "compromise" might just be to call it a 50 knot low, but it can't be considered a "remnant low" since it was convective. In the best track, L refers to remnant low and is used most commonly at the end of tropical cyclone life cycles in the eastern Pacific. They had a slight problem late in Olga's life concerning whether or not it had too much convection to satisfy their self-imposed remnant low criteria. Remnant low is another one of those terms that within wikipedia might be problematic, though at least one RSMC (NHC) actually defines the term. I don't think any other RSMC uses the remnant low term. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. I haven't gotten to Isis yet. It should be quick to do though. Give me a week, and let me see if I can get to it. Have been working on a presentation for the late March/early April hurricane conference as of late, and my focus has been more scattered lately due to home issues. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isis

Hey there - I just wanted to compliment you on this and other articles you've contributed to. You are an exceptional writer and I'm glad to see you producing FA content. --Laser brain (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pssst. I just uploaded the tcwest.html part of the TC rainfall climatology which now has the state-by-state maxima for Isis. The tcmaxima page has been updated as well. I won't have time to update the Isis graphics to include the United States until my night shifts which begin Thursday night. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto

Huh? I log in today to copyedit the article, and it failed already? Titoxd^(?!? - cool stuff) 23:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done... you should have your hands full now. :P Titoxd^(?!? - cool stuff) 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Link's Awakening FAC

I've addressed your comments about the wikilinks. David Fuchs^(talk) 20:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Old" List of California Hurricane title debate

I thought I'd bring it up here, rather than the talk page, since it's an old debate now. Tman does have a point regarding the article title. It would be a good idea if the name was changed to something like "List of tropical cyclones which have affected California", since on rare occasion the former Pacific typhoon can impact them. This would eliminate the NPOV problem which has been brought up. This could be expanded to any of the Western states if someone wanted to create such articles for Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and New Mexico at some point in the future. For the states bordering the Atlantic basin, the name hurricane in the article is probably fine, although tropical cyclone would be better. I know semantic arguments are the worst to debate...Zeta was an excellent case in point (2005 or 2006?)...but it does seem incorrect to place hurricane in the title for those states since, in reality, only one tropical cyclone of hurricane strength has sideswiped California (1858). Thegreatdr (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Hey, I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on adminship. I've noticed you around the encyclopedia a bit, you have some outstanding content contributions, are active in a lot of areas and I generally believe you'll make a great admin. If you agree, I'll get writing the nomination statement. Qst (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Achem Qst: "Due to my involvement with the Tropical cyclone WikiProject, I do not wish to become an administrator. To clarify: if nominated, I will not accept; if given the tools, I will not serve." He's not interested.^Mitch32^contribs 20:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend not to read much after 18:00. Ah, well; the offer still stands if you change your mind. Qst (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Template:Most intense Pacific hurricanes

A tag has been placed on Template:Most intense Pacific hurricanes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

[1] Titoxd^(?!? - cool stuff) 04:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I got a little too fed up with it ;) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TC FAs

It seems as if this happens every time we get another hurricane FA. I am getting really annoyed at these IPs comlaining about hurricane FAs. Juliancolton (Talk) 00:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HURDAT has been updated

Finally, 1915–1920 has been officially revised by the reanalysis project. The changes have been officially approved in HURDAT. The intensities of several tropical cyclones have been changed, and each season is more active than originally indicated in the old HURDAT. Additionally, new tropical storms and one hurricane have been added. Wikipedia needs to reflect these new changes. Can you upload new storm paths for all Atlantic storms during 1915–1920? Thanks. CVW (Talk) 01:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been updating the data for the 1915–1920 seasons. Can you peruse the Meta-Deta link (above) and upload new track maps for all 1915–1920 tropical cyclones? I'm referring to PNG files in Wikimedia Commons. Additionally, some new storms have been added to each season via the new HURDAT. CVW (Talk) 01:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted that the 1915–1920 Infobox hurricane season templates contain the pre-reanalysis seasonal track maps. The updated season maps have been placed on the HURDAT pages. Can you place the new maps in each Infobox hurricane season template from 1915–1920? Thanks. I can't figure it out! CVW (Talk) 20:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to finish these tasks tonight! I have already uploaded the new 1915–1920 seasonal maps on Wikimedia Commons. CVW (Talk) 03:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you only need to add these new maps into each Infobox hurricane season from 1915 to 1920. I apologize for the excessive responses! CVW (Talk) 03:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! I just sent a message to that user. It was a request for the new individual storm paths during 1915–1920. CVW (Talk) 03:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Inigo

The article Cyclone Inigo you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Cyclone Inigo for eventual comments about the article. Well done! jackturner3 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTD

I see you have nominated a LOTD candidate, but have not voted. We need voters for the system to work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 01:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Sub-Article

How do you think this is coming along?[[2]]TheNobleSith (talk) 04:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Temptation of Krust

Thanks for your review, I have responded to your comments at the FAC discussion page. Cirt (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded Hurricane Dora Section in 1964 Article

Hey.I expanded the Hurricane Dora section in the 1964 article and removed the request for expansion icon.Is that okay,or should the icon have stayed?TheNobleSith (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Charlie (1951)

I noted that you rated my article at B class. I thought that I provided substantial sources for GA status. Additionally, I attempted to avoid possessives and extensive quotes, the latter of which has been appropriately placed in proper contexts. Do I need to make additional adjustments in order to meet GA standards? CVW (Talk) 23:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As seen on the GAN statistics page:

Old nominations

All nominations that were added 30 days ago or longer, regardless of other activity.

1. Hurricane Charlie (1951) (13927 days)

According to the update bot for GAN, Charlie has been nominated since 1970! Considering wikipedia was created after 2000, that's amazing. ;) Juliancolton (Talk) 16:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion request

As I consider you experienced in and familiar with this sort of thing, I'm giving you a request for a second opinion on my rating of Juliancolton's new article, Hurricane Hernan (2002). Thanks. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks I'm going to have two articles involving Lidia...

While researching for Hurricane Lidia, my Hurricane Archive results (10 results) came back with mostly info on Mexican impact. When I tweaked it to read 20 to get the other 5...oh lord. NHC may have written a report on Lidia that mentioned when the hurricane was active and its demise by merging with a cold front, but the same report doesn't mention the absolute chaos that ensued both during the merger and afterward. Tornadoes developed in a long swathe of land from Texas all the way to Wisconsin, flooding came next, more than $10 million dollars in damage ($8 million of it on the strength of just ONE tornado)...and most of it due to the merging between Lidia and the cold front. Looks like Lidia may have been a lot more notable than anticipated. I'll likely be working on both Lidia and a possible 1993 September Tornado Outbreak if this keeps up. Should I work on Lidia and Main Article the tornado outbreak, or keep the tornado outbreak in the impact for the article, given that Lidia was an essential part of the origin of it. Hurricane Angel Saki My own personal NHC 02:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTD

Congratulations. List of retired Pacific hurricane names was among the leading votegetters at WP:LOTD and will be recognized as list of the day twice. If you have any date preferences get back to me by the 26th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Tropical Storm Cristobal (2002)

The article Tropical Storm Cristobal (2002) you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Tropical Storm Cristobal (2002) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! --CWY2190^T^C 01:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Charlie (1951), Easy, and Cleo

These articles have been sitting on the GAN shelf for several weeks. Do you want to rate them? CVW (Talk) 02:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review for tropical cyclone FAC

This is the third time it's been up for it, and the second time I've personally submitted this article for FAC. It seemed like most of the kinks were worked out in the second attempt (which required structural changes to the article as well as numerous additional references), but it was remarkably draining, so I waited for some time to pass before resubmitting the article. My experience during the peer review and second FAC of tropical cyclone explains why I rarely submit anything for FAC...it can take a lot of time and energy. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Longwinded of the 1968 Pacific hurricane season

You know, putting finishing touches on my 1968 article, and I just realized that this article is in dire need of a copyedit, as some sections are way too wordy. Liza, Naomi, and Pauline are all easy to manage, as I intend to make Liza and Pauline main articles (Marginally enough info exists for Pauline and Liza not only has enough info for a non-landfaller, but a section for it would clog the article too easily), and Naomi is already a main article, but some storms (like Orla) are too longwinded. Maybe you can offer me a second opinion on the article? It's right here. As far as I'm concerned, 68 is the last possible season for which storm history can be found (no MWR documents for 67 exist, and the JTWC document doesn't even have positions for the first eight storms). Finally, I want to get an OK from Mitchazenia, seeing as he has a sandbox article for it too. Hurricane Angel Saki My own personal NHC 09:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline has been created...and of course its storm history is large. By the way, there is (in my opinion) just marginally enough info on Liza (both for its storm history and impact). How about I finish that article, and you can judge whether it would work as a main article or merged? My opinion is that if it has enough info, try it. Hurricane Angel Saki My own personal NHC 02:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 8	18 February 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor — From the editor New board members Michael Snow, Domas Mituzas appointed to Board of Trustees WikiWorld WikiWorld: "Thinking about the immortality of the crab" News and notes News and notes: Administrator desysopped, milestones In the news Wikipedia in the News Tutorial Tutorial: Getting an article to featured article status Dispatches Dispatches: FA promotion despite adversity Features and admins Features and admins Technology report Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 9	25 February 2008	About the Signpost

Michael Snow interview Signpost interview: Michael Snow Controversial RFA Controversial RfA results in resysopping of ^demon Sockpuppeting administrator Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, community banned Print encyclopedias Two major print encyclopedias cease production WikiWorld WikiWorld: "Hyperthymesia" News and notes News and notes: Wikimania Call for Participation, milestones In the news Wikipedia in the News WikiProject report WikiProject Report: Family Guy Dispatches Dispatches: A snapshot of featured article categories Features and admins Features and admins Technology report Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News Arbitration report The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Barnstar

I checked the barnstar page in wikipedia, and the red one was for being helpful for others in the project. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sandbox articles

Thanks for the reminder. I contemplated moving the article, but I wasn't positive if I would accomplish the task correctly. I'll heed your advice for future articles. Thanks! On an unrelated note, do you want to quickly review my Hurricane Charlie (1951) article? Thanks for reviewing the Easy and Cleo pages. CVW (Talk) 04:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Neddy

Due to a change in criteria for Featured Topics, the featured topic, Wikipedia:Featured topics/The Simpsons (season 8) is at a risk of losing its status, unless we can get 2 more articles in the topic to Featured status (currently all are either featured or GA). Would you like to help out with getting Hurricane Neddy, currently already a WP:GA article, to featured status? Cirt (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psst!

I accidentally forgot to log in prior to editing. Can you revert my anonymous IP edits to the 1917 article and remove them from the page's history? I don't want my IP address to be viewable for the public in the history section. Thank you. CVW (Talk) 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (It's good to have an admin watching your talk page, huh?) Titoxd^(?!? - cool stuff) 07:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]