User talk:Hurricanehink/Archive 3

Sorry to bug you about you know what

I have 1 more question.i came up with my own color chart-is there a way,that mine only works there?HurricaneCraze32 21:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extratropical Edit - (779bEE) Edit

Subtropical depression Edit - (violet) Edit

Tropical depression Edit - (#E1CCFF) Edit

Tropical storm Edit - (lightgreen) Edit

Subtropical Storm Edit - (#ffe775) Edit

Category 1 hurricane Edit - (#ffdd88) Edit

Category 2 hurricane Edit - (#ffffaa)Edit

Category 3 hurricane Edit - (pink) Edit

Category 4 hurricane Edit - (#ff8f20) Edit

Category 5 hurricane Edit - (#ff4343) Edit

Re: Welcome!

Hey. Thanks for the welcome and sorry for this late reply. I hope I can help out with the project in any way possible! -Tcwd | Talk 04:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't really know. I don't have much time on my hands atm, but I'll just fix some writing mistakes here and there and update information until I get more time. -Tcwd | Talk 04:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for the welcome. Special interest in hurricanes as a Florida Keys resident for 20 years. Mostly watching the Labor Day article and other references to the Keys. (Was in New Orleans last week, suffered damage in Wilma and minor effects from Katrina. Evacuated three times in 2005.) Have worked as a copy editor and technical writer, always push for clear, concise, interesting writing. I'd like to juice up the intro on the 2005 season article (see my editing take on the talk page [1]. DavidH 18:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no

I've created a monster! Look familiar? -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 02:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's sort of a disgrace :D! Lord, I apologize... -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 02:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expedition Hurricane

Do you think that I could make an article on the Expedition Hurricane of 1861 with the info from the article? Did they have a Monthly Weather Review or something back then? Because I'm sure there must be some info there (Please respond on my talkpage). Icelandic Hurricane #12 19:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just about done with the Isabel article. I just need to put those other two sattelite images on the page. I'm sure I'll need a little. Icelandic Hurricane #12 00:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar!

Yes, 'twas I who awarded you the barnstar: I was surprised you hadn't got one already. Icelandic Hurricane #12 already awarded one to Jdorje, and I figured you were the next logical recipient. Congratulations! :D -- Sarsaparilla39 10:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Floyd

The NZ bit is important if you take into consideration Bush's "actions" during the Katrina disaster. 132.241.245.49 17:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to argue with someone who makes sense. 132.241.245.49 17:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry you weren't mean to me I was agreeing with you. 132.241.245.49 18:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Bering Sea Hurricane of 1977

Oh man!, I thought that storm was a hurricane (similar to Vince in 2005) and i was looking foward of writing an article on this storm. Storm05 17:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate help

I'd appreciate help explaining to Icelandic Hurricane on uploading and using images. NSLE _(T+C) at 12:58 UTC (2006-03-20)

Page move

Sure, that's done now. There wasn't anything on the old talk page, but if you want me to merge the details, I can do so. Titoxd^(?!? - help us) 00:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Barnstar

juan andrés 01:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For all your patience and all the greetings, I award you with this Random acts of kindness barnstar. juan andrés 01:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble with the picture :( juan andrés 01:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For 'that reason I gave you the barnstar :). juan andrés 02:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Just Curious

I grew up in South Jersey, live in N.C. now. I still keep up with the area via the internet, and still get up there a couple of times a year. I personally took the pics I added to the different pages. Joenad 03:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

Hi Hurricanehink! Thank you for supporting my RfA resume. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Cheers! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AHS changes

Make sure you add source for additions to AHS articles (like this one). The AHS articles are very light on sources at the moment. — jdorje (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good point/question. I guess if the "main article" covers something, the summary text in another article shouldn't. I believe Golbez called this "derivitive knowledge". — jdorje (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a actual footnote reference I guess, since {{hurricane main}} is already used to link to the main article and it should be clear (despite my confusion) where the information comes from. However, we will run into problems eventually because some of the storm articles are poorly referenced, a growing problem as less-notable storms continue to get articles. — jdorje (talk)

Isabel

Thanx for helping me with Isabel! It looks great! Now that Isabel's done, are there any storms that need an article that I would be able to handle? I would be fine for any basin. But are there any New England storms that need an article? Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love your help.

I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christianity Knowledge Base is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. This would go far beyond what is allowed on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, for example, there is a limit to how honorably and magnificently the Lord can be represented at WP.

Christianity Knowledge Base is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. nsandwich 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Wait a second

That is not true that the info is in the article! I had to search other places for info for all the storms on the 2002 season because I couldn't fill in every thing with what was in the article. Plus, I find them useful because sometimes it takes me a bit longer to find out info, like the category, without templates like it. So, I think they are worth it. Icelandic Hurricane #12 22:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 2003 season

I was worried about the picture but in the article now it just displays below the infobox. It seems fine to me. — jdorje (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of retired Atlantic hurricanes

Could you tell me where you got your data for the damages list on that page? In many cases it does not agree with the information in each storm's article. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 30 March 2006 @ 00:17 (UTC)

Sources

I'm not sure if you have an account for the Press of Atlantic City website, but I've tracked one of the sources in the Hurricane Gloria article there. I'm trying to replace it as it is a blog that apparently was "tracked back"ed or something similar. Any ideas? Titoxd^(?!? - help us) 01:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure... although the source doesn't seem to add much. I would ask on the talk page to see what everyone thinks. Titoxd^(?!? - help us) 02:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I meant is that the source can be replaced with other sources already in the article... but it would be much better to use that source or a public domain statement by the County... I'll look into that first. Titoxd^(?!? - help us) 02:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Karen and Hudah

I certainly will do more work on those tropical cyclone articles. Both were very significant in certain areas and deserve an article. Feel free to help. Thanks.Omni ND 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Mediterranean subtropical pic

I just did. I just had to find the website because I had forgotten its URL adress. But now it's on there. Icelandic Hurricane #12 11:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Storm Articles

I think misphrased myself in the merging discussion on Zeta. There were 2 things I should have clarified really (I was one of the anonymous users who has contributed to 2005 articles - just started a user account, trying too hard on word economy i guess).

The first is the comment about post-2005 seasons. As far as I can tell the biggest difference between 2005 and the other season articles isnt the number of storms its all the 'other' stuff. Looking at the length of the storm section in the 2004 season, if there was the same amount of other info as 2005 it would be getting on for 80k and this debate would have started last year. Given the larger number of contributors post-Katrina, I think it is likely that if 2006 is as active as 2004 the storms section will be significantly bigger, there will be more additional info and people will be complaining about article length.

The second is the commment about changing policy. What I meant is - say the decision (the second coming will be before consensus on this) IS to give every storm in 2005 an article. To continue to use notability on older (and newer) storms after that decision is inconsistent and will only cause further disputes. What I think this means is in future any article at least as well written as, say TS Lee's, doesn't get merged. -- Nilfanion 16:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually having thought about it I agree with you, just got 'slightly' overly enthusiastic on the 2005 page. I think getting all modern seasons in all basins to FA is plausible (like the '97 East Pacific one maybe). My 'goals' 2 - 4 I agree are ridiculous actually. Perhaps a better phrasing is "A historical storm or a named storm can have an article if it has sufficient information", with a proviso that minor fishspinners don't get them unless the landfalling storms of that year have enough impact info for an article. The stuff on TDs, perhaps they are valid guidelines for what future TDs can get articles, damaging ones (like 14) or those which the NHC makes a mess of (like Kendra). Nilfanion 14:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I should go ahead and (re)create the remaining articles now or is it bad faith with that vote ongoing? Nilfanion 21:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the vote is heading to the all-named-storms-get-article. Hopefully with the storm info 'safe' in storm articles, the statistics and lists pages can be revised to a format everyone accepts. Looking at the projects merging page is insightful to me, on a case-by-case basis Epsilon gets a keep. Now Epsilon is as utterly unnotable as Lee to anyone but a hurricane geek. It got that keep on article quality and the info on forecasting problems. Now Lee as reinstated has the second thing, after a copyedit it will be B-class IMO. On the arbitrary going back date I agree with you it will be about 2002/2003, thats the point where online news becomes reasonable as a source, and that is a systematic bias across WP. This means only 'notable' older storms have info, so both criteria give the same set of storms ultimately. Unless someone goes on an offline source search....Nilfanion 09:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Hink, I figured Eric would react like that to be honest (I have hung around here as an anon for sometime), its unfortunate he wasnt involved earlier on isnt it? I tried saying to him about it (the revert on lee being bad faith) and got a nasty reply back. I figure I'm out of my depth on this and to me it feels Eric has forgotten WP:OWN. Seeing as this dispute has been going on for a long time, would a request for mediation be appropriate? -- Nilfanion 22:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Hink, I am trying to engage with Eric now, as he is certainly the most ardent opponent of it. I'm aware of being bold, but I feel out of my depth here, talk about being thrown in at the deep end. When I resurrected the Lee article it wasn't because of my personal belief that all storms should have articles but to inform the debate. Hopefully I'll get the hang of it I want to reach a happy ending to this saga. PS enjoy your vacation! -- Nilfanion 00:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying that, and when this battle finishes I have every intention of helping out throughout the project, though I'll have a limited focus at first obviously. I just hope I don't find out that I'm wearing lead boots when I get thrown in the pool. :) -- Nilfanion 01:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you might want to check out User:Nilfanion/2005AHS, which is a rewrite of the season storm section, with all storms having articles and the list article being redundant. I intend to work with Eric over the next few days and try and get it into an acceptable form for all, we seemed to have made some progress last night. Knowing you are going away tomorrow for some time, I just thought I would tell you now, so if you have anything to add there it would be appreciated. -- Nilfanion 11:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I think moving slowly on this is sensible, by moving the discussion off 2005, the pace is slowed and the changes can be prepared in advance. Which editors should I bring into this; the ones who expressed reservations in the vote? Nilfanion 16:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hink, I think mediation will be happening, I think going informally as on WP:DR is appropriate, that should take a while to start, so with any luck you will be back in time to contribute. Nilfanion 12:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I know nothing much has happened, I've been ill past few days unfortunately. When I feel up to it, I think I will go through the other non-articled storms and create their articles to the same formula I have used for the others, then go back and work to improve them further. I'm not sure what is the best way to present the season storm summary now, I wonder if we should drop the concept altogether. The pertinent things about, Katrina say, are in the other sections of the article. Maybe a table with links to the articles and the list is appropriate, say have storm name, intensity, countries affected, damages and deaths? By the way with the existence of the unnamed subtropical storm, I think Alpha has become utterly unnotable, Wilma was the record breaker after all. Nilfanion 21:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honduras

Hi. I'm especially interested in how recent hurricanes have affected Honduras. I heard Mitch hurt their infrastructure about as destructively as Katrina hurt New Orleans. Why was Honduras so vulnerable to a hurricane, if it's all above sea level? Is it flimsy housing, dirt roads or what? --Uncle Ed 11:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

I need help with the Worldwide Drought of 2005-06 article because user NSLE is going to delete it and I objected but i dont know what to do. Storm05 12:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Just in case you have not already read them:

• http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/adgeo/2/adgeo-2-217.pdf
• http://www.cosmic.ucar.edu/2002Conference/Abstracts/Kuo_YH_6_1.pdf

Cheers, Kosebamse 16:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, obviously an understudied phenomenon. Googling for "date of storm" plus "mediterranean" plus "cyclone" and with document type pdf has revealed a few papers; have not yet tried google scholar. Good luck! Kosebamse 16:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another one that might be useful: *http://www.google.de/search?hs=fRH&hl=de&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Ade%3Aofficial&q=%22warm+core%22+cyclone+mediterranean&btnG=Suche&meta= have not looked them through though. Kosebamse

And yet another one that's really in-depth ("The purpose of this paper is to show the existence of another category of cyclones... acquire most of the features of a tropical hurricane ... observed over the Mediterranean Sea." )

• http://www.ictp.trieste.it/~pub_off/preprints-sources/1998/IC98007P.pdf

and that's enough for now. Cheers. Kosebamse 16:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Billie (1976)

Ive created a rough draft of the Typhoon Billie (1976) article and I revised a bit but I need to know for sure that everything is correct in the article before moving it to the main space. Storm05 14:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bug!

Sorry to bug you Hink, but I have some simple questions.

1. What is the differences between a Tropical cyclone, Subtropical cyclone, & Extratropical cyclone?
2. On your list, if the name belonged to a deadly hurricane, would it be retired?
3. Would there be a set of six secondary names for all six sesonal names?
4. Did you get this idea from the Pacific Typhoons?
5. Wouldn't it be funny if Hurricane Devon was a bad hurricane like Andrew or Katrina (somewhat like your first name)?

Please answer. — HurricaneDevon @ 19:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Karen and Hudah2

Right now, I have a few assignments I need to complete for school; I'll be available by the end of April Vacation in my area, which ends on April 26. Omni ND 18:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An award long overdue

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I am proud to award you this barnstar for your contributions to the tropical cyclone project have been invaluable. The level of hard work and research you put into these articles is without precedent.

Every day I am reminded of how much your contributions have improved the Wikiproject. I'm just proud that I could be something of a catalyst for all this. Your contributions have far superceded mine and now I just hope I'm good enough to walk in your shadow. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 22:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. That really means a lot to me :). Enjoy your vacation and I'll see you when you get back. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 04:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the references cited

They were very useful juan andrés 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: More Coincidences

WHHAAAATT!!?? Nice! I tried to find evidence that all the storms named Olivia came from from Atlantic tropical disturbences. I was wrong. Thanks dude! Cyclone1 14:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I need em! :) —Cyclone1 14:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean canes

You know, I bet that you could merge most of your Mediterranean storm stuff into the Mediterranean tropical cyclones article. I'm sure that what you wrote isn't false information, unlike Cyclone One's. Icelandic Hurricane #12 02:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I just checked the article and realized that you already did that! Icelandic Hurricane #12 02:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redundant article

Please tell that crazy user who wrote that ridiculous Universal Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina that theres no infomation in it, I all ready told him that the article was nonsonse but yet he objects despite the redundancy. Storm05 16:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanecraze32/LNBS

Mate, could you re-move the pages you moved, to User:XXX/YYY, rather than User:XXX:YYY? Cheers, NSLE _(T+C) at 00:21 UTC (2006-04-19)

Subpages are all done at a / subpage, there isn't a single subpage I know of at a ":" :P NSLE _(T+C) at 00:43 UTC (2006-04-19)

Pictures

I found a cooler picture of Felix at [2], although it includes NASA logo and this is a NASA picture, the dot-com makes me doubt; I really want to know the nature of this picture and if it could loaded with no problem. I put the link, so you can access the page with ease. juan andrés 01:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you for solving my question. juan andrés 02:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm article layout

Hey hows your vacation going/gone? I'm feeling better so I finished off the first-pass on the remaining articles, I plan to go over the other 'minor' storms. I think I will raise the issue of articles for storms on WP:MEDCAB as soon as I figure it out, the informal option seems the best way and should give insight into 'what next?'. Anyway I've been thinking about a subtle rearrangement of how the data is presented IN storm articles; I remember 'outside' editors having problems with how Katrina's retirement is treated and they have a valid point I think. I think the following layout could offer an improvement to all storms. My minor storm articles are temporary in layout, just made that way for ease of writing.

• Intro
• Storm History (no reference to post season changes - eg in Emily simply state it was a cat 5)
• Preparations (include warnings stuff)
• Impact
• Aftermath
• Forecasting (This to include after-the-fact changes - As a Top-level section here or between history and preparations; as a subsection of history, or a section containing preparations?)
• Other stuff (Name issue? This to contain the stuff which doesn't really belong elsewhere, like Alpha - first exhausted list Greek named storm, Gordon (1994) - Lack of retirement, Katrina - Retirement, most '05 storms - earliest nth storm)
• The refs and links.

Apart from the name of the last section... what works? I think this could offer the basis for a consistent layout of articles for all storms; and as 2005 will set standards what do you think? --Nilfanion 21:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you are hiding from the sun to work on WP, lol. Forecasting and preparations do overlap in terms of content (warnings for instance). However they do seem subtly different so a 'correct' section name might be a little complex. The biggest problem I noticed is the lack of impact stuff for those storms not touching the US. With US storms we have that nice rainfall graphic from the HPC for instance. However I found a potentially very useful information source on the WMO site [3]. The RA IV session reports contain the information submitted by the countries. For example the 27th session report (the 2004 season) contains "Hurricane Jeanne caused losses equivalent to $270 million [in the Dominican Republic]". There is a LARGE amount of extra info in those reports, and its on an area the project struggles with - non-US impact! I hope they get the 28th session report up soon... --Nilfanion 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on that, those reports help on the more significant storms. We can't use it for the fishspinners, and besides the pure TCR/advisory combo is all we are ever going to have for them. And I agree Bret, Gert and Jose are going to be tricky - its the Mexicans who were affected and they seem poor as an info source (Emily's non-retirement), hopefully the press can fill the gap. --Nilfanion 15:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we should do now is get Irene's article to the 'best possible' status (Is A-class possible?). All the articles exist now, lets get them good one at a time, that seems the one to start with. Once its settled, then go into the other storms, starting with the other recreations, then the other minors (the Greeks mostly); we have a framework to work with in Irene I think. --Nilfanion 14:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Irene has had the major work and is nearing what we can do now. We have two model articles to work from now, Irene and Epsilon. Epsilon presents the forecasting as a distinct section, Irene as part of the history, if we could decide one or the other it would work better. As that feels like the end is in sight, I start to expand my active interest, only to find the mess that the 2005-06 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season is in. The article is trying to do waaaaaay too much (imagine an article on the "2005 Northern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season"), a retirement worthy storm has a 5 sentence description as the entire mention of it on the season article (not even a pic) while Tropical Storms have on-season-article descriptions not far below Atlantic standards. I proposed a 3-way split on the article, (see my logic there) and IMO a 2-way at the least is necessary as it is an article about something that doesnt even exist (there are 2 seasons: the SW Indian and the SE Indian/S Pacific). --Nilfanion 18:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I agree, A-class is not possible, but Irene is about B-class now, I will leave Epsilon to the end and then see if a reorganisation makes sense (the others don't use forecasting as their justification for existence). With the S Hemisphere, understand your logic there. It is messy a split, as crossovers are much more common - its like if the central Pacific was significant and couldn't be treated as a subbasin of the EastPac. The demarcations are clear between regions are clear enough. [4] The primary reason for favouring the Australian separation from South Pacific (apart from storm numbers), is primarily in that the Australians use a distinct scale from Saffir-Sampson. This causes problems with clarity, as for example in 2004-05, there (Australian) TC Harvey is Cat 3 (Aus scale) and (S Pac) Severe TC Meena is Cat 4 (Saffir-Sampson). We don't need to go far back in time until the Aus/S Pac regions might as well be merged; the information dries up fast. A 3-way split could work if the intro starts "The 2005-06 Aus season, officially part of the 2005-06 SE Indian/S Pac season. --Nilfanion 21:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for congrats on the Irene article. I think like with 2005AHS, the thing to do with the south is not to worry about the past just yet, get the most recent articles right first (there is a bad tendency for articled storms to have pathetic stubs in the season). I say do the 2-way split all the way back, go to straight to pre-2000 for the SW and leave as is for the other, this way we are at least talking about valid WMO seasons. With a 3-way split that is only viable for 2004-05 onwards, earlier seasons are not good enough. I say implement the 2-way split and then review it once the 2005-06 South Pacific and Southeast Indian cyclone season stabilises. --Nilfanion 23:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, now Irene is 'done', and gives me a framework to work with, Lee is next on my 'hit-list'. I agree on the 2 way split - the SW Indian from the others. I think the 3-way split in the long term would be better (come on after 2005AHS you gotta expect that from me), my reasoning being the 3 different scales used and secondly east of 160E tropical cyclones are hurricanes (if strong enough). However, I can see without the number of storms/info, there is no point really.--Nilfanion 12:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I will work through all the storms at a steady pace (I will leave the retired ones to last obviously). I have put a todo table on my userpage, showing how its going. I don't think it is right for me to do this completely on my own, I think someone else has to come in to do copyediting, look for lacking info and assess what class it is (outside eyes are better...). I'm done adding to Lee now and just starting Franklin. --Nilfanion 10:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request?

Hi, you left a message on my talk page about an unblock request. I am somewhat confused as the blocklog shows that your account has never been blocked [5] I think it might be that as you said an IP conflict. If that is the case, I am going to need your IP address. If you would rather not post it online, then feel free to E-mail me and I will do what I can to help resolve your situation. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 16:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean storm

Since you seem to be "In charge" of Mediterranean tropical cyclones, I thought I'd tell you about something I found; http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/?2005349-1215/Egypt.A2005349.1125.1km.jpg . It says it's a dust storm, but it looks very much like a moderate to strong tropical storm. What do you think of it? Are you going to add it to your page of Med. TCs? Icelandic Hurricane #12 13:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think that http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/?2005348-1214/Libya.A2005348.1220.2km.jpg is the beginnings of the first image I told you about. Icelandic Hurricane #12 13:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I was wondering if you knew the answers to these questions. I have downloaded two images, both are maps; Image:Brisbanecyconemap.jpg (I made a typo in the name) and Image:Allseasons.jpg. But I don't know the liscensing for them. The brisbane one was the australian government, and the all areas of responsibility one came from a website with a URL ending in .ch. I'm not sure what rules australia has about government images and I'm not sure what .ch stands for. Would you know the answer to this? Icelandic Hurricane #12 14:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE Assesments

Oh i thought the Assements are for rasing the article grade from start to ether A, B or FA class. Storm05 16:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Damage pictures

I went to the Canadian Hurricane Center website and found a lot of storm damage pics from Hazel. the problem is there is no copyright infomation to justify their uploading (although im leaning to the copyright fair use or ingelible for copyright tags) and I dont want NSLE to hound on me like he did for the past several days. Heres the links. Storm05 16:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch

Sorry I haven't had much time to edit the article, but I found a link that might be useful: [6]. I'll try looking for more things next week, but right now tests and term papers don't let me edit much. Titoxd^(?!? - help us) 02:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Older Storms

I am in shock as to how much more we can do to storm articles now. Have you noticed this page on the NHC site and its contents? Some seasons just have TCRs, but some have much more information. Take Hurricane Helene (1958), Storm05 created that from the NOAA season summary. On the NHC site, in addition to the full TCR, there is 15 pages of newspaper cuttings and similar stuff. I told Storm05 about it, hopefully he will add a lot more data to his storm articles. I'm not going to contemplate touching that stuff for some time, I have enough on my plate with 2005AHS at the moment; but I thought you would appreciate knowing this.--Nilfanion 23:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I get it, I will concentrate on improving articles, its not like we Wicanepedians (I like that label) have a shortage of people making new ones. The collaboration of the fortnight and similar will be something I will help with once I've done what my stated objectives are for 2005 AHS (as on my user page). That is apart from keeping an eye on active storms, that southern hemisphere thingy and some other minor stuff. Could you go give Lee's article a look over? I feel I've done all I can, it needs someone else to copyedit/assess it.--Nilfanion 23:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well for my part, I understand what you mean about getting frustrated with most people. The majority of the pro-article mob just seem to be "of course they are worth articles", without actually adding much to the 2005 season storms, nevermind the past. I have no intent on sticking to the 'current' seasons, just 27 storms is going to take time. When that is done I will likely go and assist you with retired storms (Irene at B-class, Inez a stub is just wrong), though 2006AHS will interfere. Thanks on the copyedit, as I get more experienced I will get better at doing that myself. As for assessment, fair enough, that's why I don't want to do it. I would like to think Lee is B-class, the to-do list is empty really after all, which wicanepedians are good at doing the assessing?--Nilfanion 10:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, considering I'm restricting my remit (not impact, beyond some short sentences), I think I will be going at one article an editing day (Franklin's done). It shouldn't be too bad really, I'm getting the little quirks in the discussions to cheer me (the NHC really loves sheared storms).--Nilfanion 21:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could help me, give me Spanish lessons, LOL. I'm tempted to start a quotes subpage on my userspace, to contain the best (or should that be worst) of them. And the fact help is there is all the reassurance I think I need :).--Nilfanion 21:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hink, do you know what is wrong with Philippe's image (#5 for me..)? I tried putting the list image in, but I get some weird error code.--Nilfanion 22:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Yeah, a little bit. I asked another editor who likes to do citations if he wanted to finish them off for you, and he told me to add the template, but it seems you beat him to the punch... :) Titoxd^(?!? - help us) 01:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irene

I didn't mean to sound "disappointed" that you said no to A-class on Irene. I am trying to learn how assessment works so test cases like that are useful for me. I was neutral on the classifcation being upped, only the way I read the assessment criteria I interpreted "nothing more substantial to say" as "higher than B class". That reading meant I felt it could be a higher class. Also by putting it there is also to see if there is general approval of the B (beyond us two and Jdorje). 31% B-class or higher, thats bad...I want to get more like 90% in the wikiproject.--Nilfanion 23:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you say that I can see what the qualitative difference between A and B is, I couldn't beforehand really. Putting up examples of each classes would be a good idea as stub, start and B are left up to editors to assess, some examples would enable a wider group of editors to do the assessment accurately. IMO the 5 storms I've done so far are B, forecasting has been added, and they all had near-zero impact; I've just held off for now.--Nilfanion 13:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jose

I made a requested translation of the impact of Jose. The original page is in this site. Since I'm a native speaker of Spanish here goes the translation of the text. All the grammar corrections were made (I hope) and if there's a mistake, feel free to change it:

Tropical Storm Jose damaged crops, highways and homes; left districts of several cities under the water, around fifty isolated communities and 80 thousand people in shelters in the state of Veracruz. This situation forced President Vicente Fox to make a visit to the disaster zones. The government of that state concluded that damages caused by the rain could rise to 500 million pesos (around 48 million dollars), as they report the damages caused in 120 municipalities. The sub secretary of the Civil Defense (Protección Civil), Ranulfo Márquez Hernández, revealed that eight of the municipalities received most of the damage and explained that in those zones there were 10 thousands victims, according to a report. Those municipalities are Martínez de la Torre, Misantla, Nautla, San Rafael, Vega de la Torre, Actopan, Cardel and Úrsulo Galván. The damages to the highway infrastructure are estimated in 350 million pesos (around 33 million dollars) mainly in the municipalities of Naranjos, Agua Dulce, Jáltipan, San Andrés Tuxtla, Hidalgotitlán, Tenochtitlán, Cosoleacaque, Chinameca and Catemaco.

State civil employees (empleados estatales) informed that the there were damages in at least 16 thousand homes and in 32 thousand hectares (around 80 thousand acres) of sugar cane, mainly in the South of that state. Also, 25 thousand hectares (around 60 thousand acres) used for cattle were flooded. Four thousand hectares of orange and Persian lemon were also flooded; in the river basin of the Papaloapan, damages to rice and sugar cane were severe; four thousand hectares (around ten thousand acres) of maize were "completely flooded"; and 2 thousand hectares (around 5000 thousand acres) of banana crops were damaged. In addition, damages to watermelon and vanilla crops surpass the 50 hectares (around 125 acres) and in 80 cages of mojarra in Barra de Chachalacas, as well as the disappearance of boats. With the purpose of avoiding infections in the zones where floods were registered, the Health Secretary (Secretaría de Salud, SSA) sent to damaged zones, 90 active medical brigades. The governor Fidel Herrera assured that "he passed the emergency" and affirmed that the damages were high because Tropical Storm Jose was combined with other meteorological patterns; however, the President requested more precise data.

And that's all juan andrés 03:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you said it, next step is writing the article in my own words. Now here goes the question. How can I write the article without spoiling it? juan andrés 02:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you like it. I did the needed corrections for the article. Now before proceeding, is in there any problem if I ask someone, e.g. Jdorje, for correcting my editions before I make the final post? Because as a good wikiproject it must be teamwork. :) juan andrés 03:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Jose was responsible for damaging crops, highways and homes; leaving districts of several cities under the water, around fifty isolated communities and 80 thousand people in shelters in the state of Veracruz. The government of that state concluded that damages caused by the storm were estimated in 45 million dollars). There were 120 municipalities affected by the rains, but it was revealed that mainly in eight of those was experienced most of the damage. Those municipalities are Martínez de la Torre, Misantla, Nautla, San Rafael, Vega de la Torre, Actopan, Cardel and Úrsulo Galván. Damages to the highway infrastructure were estimated in 33 million dollars.

It was also reported that the storm damaged at least 16 thousand homes and in 32 thousand hectares (around 80 thousand acres) of sugar cane, mainly in the south of that state. Also, 25 thousand hectares (around 60 thousand acres) used for cattle; four thousand hectares of orange and Persian lemon crops; four thousand hectares (around ten thousand acres) of corn and 2 thousand hectares (around 5000 thousand acres) of banana crops were completely flooded. In addition, there were also damages to watermelon and vanilla crops, as more of 50 hectares (around 125 acres) were flooded, as well as the disappearance of boats. With the purpose of avoiding infections in the zones where floods were registered, 90 active medical brigades were sent to the damaged zones. [7]

Jose was associated with six direct casualties. One of this deaths was due to a mud slide that killed a 59-year old man was killed in Jalapa. The other five deaths were also due to mudslides in Oaxaca. [8]