User talk:Runningonbrains/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions and postings on my talk page. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Any edits will be reverted. To contact me, post on my talk page. Namaste.

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norwalk Wiki

Greetings, at some point you expressed an interest in contributing to Fairfield County related articles at WikiProject Connecticut. I recently created the Norwalk Wiki for everything that would not otherwise be notable enough for Wikipedia. Its brand new, so we need to get the word out about it. I invite your correspondence. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoety ^talk 02:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashanti (singer)

I noticed your revert here in Ashanti (singer) only restored unsourced information. I'm assuming this revert was a mistake? DiverseMentality 04:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that, I was reverting to an old version but did not realize you had reverted to an even older revision beforehand. I have undone it. -RunningOnBrains 04:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it happens when reverting a user who edits multiple articles. DiverseMentality 04:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That deleted talk page

Where would you suggest I move it? The talk page of a deleted file is normally deleted when the file itself is. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikhlas Khouli

Can the {{notable}} be removed from the Ikhlas Khouli article now? Nsaa (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inauguration GAC

The Kennedy illness is not a part of the required part of the article in terms of its complete resolution. Only that which occurs during the ceremonies are part of the article. Admittedly, the parade still has a few minutes left. However, the attendence can be added when it is available. The thing is that a typical wait for review is about 4 or 5 weeks. Thus, although I nomminated this a few hours prematurely, I don't think it is a problem. Others may disagree. You may be correct that it will be somewhat unstable for another 48 hours in all likelihood. I would defer to strong opinions to wait.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:10 deadliest Canadian tornadoes

Thank you for finding a source the reason i deleted it was because there was no source.Kyle1278 (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with English?

Hi Runningonbrains,
I am not sure you remember me, but you've helped me with my grammar once at Commons. May I please ask you, if you have a time to read and correct my gramar in the article I wrote yesterday? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll try to help you with FP in any way I could. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I have one more article to correct grammar. Please let me know, if and when you have a time and I'll give you the link. Please feel free to ask questions about your images. Best wishes. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added you to my DYK nomination. I hope you do not mind. Best.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the lead image of the article on FPC. It will be great, if you have a time and wish to review and maybe to vote on the image. IMO this place is fascinating. I just learned about it few days ago. It is interesting, simple, beautiful and full of mysteries.

Later on I will ask your help on Fata Morgana (mirage) article that I wrote some time ago, if of course you have a time. I was harshly criticized for my work, so I reverted my changes. I hope you might be interested in the article; after all it has something to do with meteorology. Thank you very much again for your help and for your time. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Uhoris metrshy ohra[reply]

Eagerness to delete external links

I noticed you deleted external links I posted up on Samsong. You could have informed me of your reason first before deleting. I know tons of APPROVED artsist with a host of external links. I dont see you deleting the links. At least show some courtesy and respect before deleting edits. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennethtamara (talk • contribs) 21:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I am removing my first and last name and placing "Serbiana" which was my later nickname for my account. As you see, it has been deleted and I do not want my real first and last name to be on Wikipedia - I believe I have that right. Could you please re-install my changes, as I have not deleted anything, but merely replaced my name with a nickname. Thank you --96.49.194.31 (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Disk

I wanted to write an article about Jungle Disk, the software, not the company, so the lazyweb would populate a list of similar products in the article, but the article was speedily deleted for being about the company. The product was mentioned in the press. How should the stub of an article be written?—Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielHolth (talk • contribs)

1998 Comfrey – St. Peter tornado outbreak

Hi there- after a few months break I'd like to make another run at FAC for this article. Do you have any comments or suggestions about if you think it is ready? Rather than put it up for another peer review, I figured I'd just do a quick survey first in case people think one is not needed.

Honestly, I never quite understood what was wrong with it the first time (specifics) but I think I have found a few minor improvements here and there. WxGopher (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice way of reverting

When I used to make funny??? edits, I normally used to get lots of warning and few threatens to block the IP (In my case its dynamic, so who cares?) and this is the first time a very soft approach!

Keep it up! 59.92.19.134 (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi,i just can`t find the mark page as patrolled button after i mark the page for deletion,so its not that i do not want too,cheers,Jamiebijania (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,but the thing disappears after i place the tag!Jamiebijania (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1925 Tri-State tornado

Hello. As you've worked on this article previously, please see the note on the article's Talk Page regarding name change. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hartford Meetup: We need your help!

The next Connecticut Wikipedia meetup will take place sometime during April 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please list on the meetup page whether or not you can go. Also please contribute ideas for topics and dates! Hope to see you there!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling

Hi,may i know why i am not able to patrol pages now?Jamiebijania (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1899 New Richmond tornado

I reviewed your article, 1899 New Richmond tornado, for GA and passed it. A very nice little article. The review is at Talk:1899 New Richmond tornado/GA1. Congratulations! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature symbols

I have never seen C° and F° before. In the article list of weather records, I changed to °C and °F. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 02:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of List of District of Columbia tornadoes

Hello! Your submission of List of District of Columbia tornadoes at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Shubinator (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of List of District of Columbia tornadoes

Hello! Your submission of List of District of Columbia tornadoes at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mario1987 12:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Meetup: You are invited!

The 2nd Connecticute Meetup will take place on April 18th, 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please state whether or not you can attend on the meetup page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) because your name was on the invite list. 16:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a request

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with Varese Sarabande?

Are you the authority figure for this company or their Wiki page? The releases are historically important and should be documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeWinter1 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archive move...

Hi, you helped me without me knowing it and I messed up again. Please redo it again Special:MovePage//User_talk:Roberth_Edberg/Talk_Archive_2, thanks! --Roberth Edberg (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda

Are you talking about the dash change? If so, that was done by the DOI bot (one revision in there not shown). WxGopher (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. I think what I did, is at one point I went around to different articles, and if they were listed as Stub on the talk page, and they didn't have a stub template on the article, then I put one on. Then today when I saw the article, I noticed that it was listed as Start class, so I took the stub template off. In either case, I think I was just keeping it consistent with the talk page, and not even really thinking about the article too much! WxGopher (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake cloud

Just because I opposed the AfD doesn't mean that I believe the article has a balanced and well-cited review of the theory. In fact, like many articles here at Wikipedia, it would benefit from cleanup and further citation. Thank you for your offer to improve this article; it is very much appreciated! – 74  06:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hautmont tornado was an EF4

According to the official report published by France, it was rated as a level 4 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale, meaning they use the EF scale, unlike the rest of Europe for some reason. I was unsure about using EF in the article since the others were all rated on the old scale. Cyclonebiskit 13:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No flagged revisions category up for deletion

The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23#Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Hey. I've long been impressed with your content work (particularly at Portal:Weather), and I was wondering if you'd be interested in running for adminship. I can't make any promises, but I think you'd have a good shot at passing. :) Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, sounds good. I'll get started on the nomination then. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Runningonbrains ← Feel free to accept at any time. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, do you want to transclude it on WP:RFA, or shall I? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Runningonbrains's Day!

Runningonbrains has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Runningonbrains's Day! For your awesome work on meteorology articles, enjoy being the star of the day, dear Runningonbrains! Signed, Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!.

--Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 01:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am overwhelmed by this honor...I would like to thank the academy, and all of these wonderful editors who have worked with me, oh, Hi Mom! And Jimbo Wales of course; without him, none of this would have been possible...-RunningOnBrains 16:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Runningonbrains. You have new messages at Smallman12q's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Smallman12q (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Zaidi

The page is a direct copy of http://www.freebase.com/view/en/adnan_zaidi. You said you couldn't find any sources, but I speedied the article for copyright infringement. :) ceranthor 20:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both realized. Already done, my sincere apologies. ceranthor 20:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full Armor of God broadcast image

I apologize for accidentally deleting the image when removing potentially libelous unsourced material, it was absolutely an error. Drawn Some (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake cloud

Dreadful article. I see it survived an AfD but isn't it actually just a content fork of Earthquake prediction? Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Premature congrats

Well RoB, your RfA is only an hour away from closure – and with support at 91%, I think that it's safe to say that it's highly unlikely that your RfA will fail. Well done, sir, and please use the sysop tools to continue your good work. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 21:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are now an admin

I'm pleased to inform you that I have closed your RFA as successful, and that you are now an admin. The community has seen it fit for you to continue your excellent contributions in a new way, and I personally hope that you'll continue to develop as an editor. If you'd like to try out your new tools, you can head over to New Admin School. Should you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me or another admin. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 23:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! :D --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 23:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on your successful RfA! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Adminship

No problem; I'm confident you'll be an excellent admin. And yeah, the NAS is pretty boring/tedious, but it's quite useful. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions.

And thanks for the barnstar! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks fine. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mowbray College

I have referenced the College website as well which will cover some of the information that is found in the entry. However, what school would put their entire history on their website? If they were to talk about every feature of the College on their site, then the College website would become like an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.145.148.60 (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mowbray Redux

I always find it interesting that people can go to so much effort and make so much noise when attempting to "remove unsourced material" by repeatedly blanking a page. However, I do a little Googling and replace the unsourced content with sourced content. Takes much less time, uses much less effort, gives the same end result, and doesn't get me blocked. Figure that out... -- saberwyn 07:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Union (Yes album)

Thanks for the notification! Greatly appreciated.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New section

(moved from my user page)why did you delete my article? you don't have anything better to do with your life?-—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.75.144 (talk • contribs)

Quick question

I'm having trouble understanding how to add references, can you please explain this to me

Thanks

-CakeMace —Preceding unsigned comment added by CakeMace (talk • contribs) 07:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Da best editor

Thank you for sorting this user out. I was trying to keep an eye on them as I had a sinking feeling that they would not be back editing productively, and they seem to have a long history of disappearing, coming back and acting disruptively for a while, then disappearing again before anyone got round to doing anything. I'd hoped they might eventually get the message and either go away or settle down and be useful here... this may well help! thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! Thanks for the message. Good luck with the adminship: rather you than me, to be honest! Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: For the record

Normally I'm (slightly) less blunt with users but this is at least the third time this person has done this (judging from the pattern of vandalism and the use of the page name in the edit summary), not with the same IP of course. To me that's a consistent enough pattern where being nice is no longer called for and the vandalism needs to be stopped, especially when it's sneaky misinformation that might not get caught (as in the vandal's changing I6 to V6). --Sable232 (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf low

The quality you have that escapes others, particularly in the federal government, is known as common sense. Having a Ph.D. does not guarantee that a particular person has common sense, just a significant amount of information concerning a topic. Common sense requires using the information you know without regard to political aftermath, basing decisions on a meteorological basis only. Sometimes, decisions are made on a political basis, such as not wanting to work night shifts. Not that this was the reason for a lack of advisories on an out of season system, I'm just saying.... =) Thegreatdr (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

template

thanks for you positive reaction to my template! and for the edit on it

check out my new template as well, the one about eschatology and cyclons —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstrak (talk • contribs) 19:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut portal

Hey. I know you've worked on some Connecticut-related articles in the past, so you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Connecticut, and let me know if everything in the portal is accurate. Cheers! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply

Here is my reply to your note. Geo Swan (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado

Hello,

It seems that there is a rush of the vandals on the article Tornado since you removed the protection. This is a very sad situation and I just wonder the cause of such a sick behavior. Pierre cb (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar thanks

Hi Runningonbrains, I just returned from a real-life vacation and wanted to offer a quick thank-you note for this. It's certainly the most thoughtful barnstar I've received, and therefore very much appreciated. Your nice words for me aside, I could not agree more with the general tenor of your comment. I'm sure you'll do excellent work as an admin. See ya around. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned postings

Please sign your postings on talk pages, particularly when they are blocks such as [1]. There are templates at WP:WARN which will include your signature. Congratulations on becoming an administrator. Thanks. Edison (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different admins sometimes specialize in different things. I rarely close AFD's for instance, but I do CSDs and blocks. Edison (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:Brokencyde

I undeleted because that AfD was old and the band is now clearly notable and satisfies WP:MUSIC notability requirements (2 albums, international tours, many references in media). It puts Wikipedia in a bad light that it doesn't have articles about notable subjects. I would appreciate if you recognize your mistake and undelete the article.  Grue  09:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you took it upon yourself to delete an article that happily existed for the whole month and was edited by lots of different users (but hey, it's non-notable, no one ever heard of it). It had references from reliable sources. You just went and deleted it based on half-year old AfD, without even checking what's going on. Good job. And now I'm supposed to waste my precious time on deletion review?  Grue  16:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

huricane template

hi, the reason that i wanted the other to delete was the idea that mine had more style but had the same information. but just cancel the deletion, i dont really care, and i'm new to wikipedia and i did'ne really understand that deletion stuff.

and, i did'nt really understand the second part because i dont really understand english THAT good.

but what i did understand is that you wany to get the other ( i'll wont say old) template back.

but why is that? i'l hear it from you.

also i'm busy with exams on school and a lot of other thinks on wikipedia and stuff so everything can take a while.

by the way, i saw you just deleted al these signature, thangs for doing it for me XD i'll stop doing it. ^All _strak^(Talks to me!) 18:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you tag the "Shpoople" page for Speedy deletion.

What do you find inappropriate about the page in question page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxman2013 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar and style

You wrote: Thanks for your fixes to Windsor Locks, Connecticut tornado. However minor, they are much appreciated. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 15:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help in what little ways I can. I was nearby, and remember that twister.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you more time

I didn't realize the complication. I'll give you another week. The lead should be a full summary of the content below. It shouldn't be a teaser. The references need to be done in a similar format to one another. In other words, the book references need to be placed in a ref format similar to cite book, where all relevant information, including ISBN number, year of publishing, title, etcetera, are included. The information within the book refs should be at least as complete as your web references. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Infobox

Need your help with the Infobox on Benson Idahosa. I've read everything I can, and triple checked it with other articles. I cant figure out whats not properly done. Kennethtamara (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of weather records

You wrote: Thank you for experimenting with the page List of weather records on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 18:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't experimenting, I've made several edits (to other articles) under different IPs and this is the first time one of them is reverted. May I ask why?

You wrote: Your edit introduced unsourced information which appears to be false. It appeared to be what we call a test edit, where a new user is experimenting with wikicode, which is why I placed that message here; I appologize if I was wrong. If you believe the information you added was correct, let me know, but I believe you are mistaken. -00:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

My small edit use only previously existing sources in the article, so if it's incorrect then previous edits should also be reverted. Specifically, in the temperature rise and drop sections I thought that in an article dealing with records it'd be nice to state start and finish temperatures. The addition of the second drop (after the record rise in Spearfish, South Dakota) is clearly a record in itself. Regarding the rain records in Cherrapunji, the referred BBC article clearly states both records, the yearly being more than 1000 inches, namely 1042. I've used milimeters for the sake of consistency and because amount of rain is usually measured by that unit (and not meters). It's true that the Guinness book numbers in the article about this city are slightly different, so if my edit is reinstated I'll correct both accordingly (and the source to the one appearing there).

Re: benson Idahosa

Thanks a bunch man. You rock!!!!! I'll def be reaching out to you whenever i get stuck (hope not too often. lol). Kennethtamara (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New section

HELP I REALLY THINK I AM BEING GANGED UP Ob9889 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ob9889 (talk • contribs)

Tornado myths

That is what I've been trying to tell you. As far as I can tell from wikipedia standards, the lead is supposed to be a summary, not a tease. Right now, it is more of an introduction than a summary. The reference problem is still not fixed, as the book references are not in the same format as the web references, though there has been improvement. An image does need to lead the article as well, which I placed in the GAN review since your posting to my talk page. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you citing each different page where necessary. My problem is with your TWO reference sections, rather than having just one. You need to use refs with the cite book template, with the full format included, not just author, year, and page number. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page you linked me to shows that you're improperly citing books, even in that manner. Look over that specific wikipedia guideline page again. The book reference section you have is to be merged into the general reference section (where you have the web references), with the way you've annotated it currently in the reference section with just author and page number being separated out into a notes section. This is different from the way you have it arranged now. Keep in mind this is not the only issue you have left outstanding with the article, so it is not the only issue remaining for you to reach GA. There has been much banter within the GA/FAC talk page over the years about pages being prematurely promoted to GA, primarily with referencing and grammar issues. I'm not one of those reviewers who jumps to promote an article to GA. You are improving the article, but it still doesn't seem to satisfy the GA criteria to me. My issues right now are primarily with 2a (the way you're using citations) and 6 (imagery). You need an image in the lead as well. You are free to ask for second opinions, if you'd like them. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead image seemed to disappear yesterday but appears to have returned, so I struck that comment out of the GAN page a little while ago. There are a few lingering issues with the lead (now it has unique information which is a no-no) and shortness of the tornadoes in winter section, of which I've left comments on within the GAN page. Different reference issues are now seen in the web references, where some refs have publishing year/date, and others do not. The referencing should be uniform amongst the web references. I'm leaving the second opinion tag up, just in case. You're making good progress, and I understand your frustration. I've had articles wait 7 weeks to even be reviewed because people felt they weren't knowledgeable enough concerning the topic. I've also had articles stuck in GAN for 1-2 weeks after the initial review, even without the complication of being out of town. In fact, I have one up for GAN right now where the primary reviewer hasn't responded to me in 3 days. You learn to live with the frustration. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see issues with civility. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost there. I've helped you out with the ref issues I spotted. You have one new section which needs more content; it is too stubby/short. Otherwise, the information needs to be provided in another pre-existing larger section, where appropriate. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Note the remaining issue I tried to include on the talk page for Tornado Myth, but somehow ended up within its GA2 page. You're going to need to fix this potential POV issue before peer reviewing and FACing the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Westhampton Beach: source is a blog?

Hello Runningonbrains, what leads you to believe that the newsday article used in Westhampton Beach, New York is a blog? --JBC3 (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed references to http://whbqt.info/template_permalink.asp?id=261, a blog site. I replaced that reference with the news site reference. The content removal was because I believe a debate about how much to pay the police chief is completely irrelevant for the Wikipedia article. -RunningOnBrains^(talk page) 02:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, gotcha. I don't disagree. I just needed to make sure the newsday site wasn't a blog, because I've seen it used elsewhere. Take care. --JBC3 (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I appologize for blatantly ignoring your request at the top of your talk page; it shan't happen again! -RunningOnBrains^(talk page) 03:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for Weather Bulletins

I'm trying to create an infobox for weather bulletins (i.e. tornado warnings, high wind warnings), and after getting started on my sandbox, it became evident to me rather quickly that I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing (not only with creating the template, but I also realized I have no clue what should go in the infobox). Could you perhaps help me with this? Thanks, Ks0stm ^(T•C) 18:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

GA Sweeps

Welcome to Sweeps, it's always great to have a new member! To answer your question I already reviewed all of the meteorology articles (sorry if I beat you to the punch!). If you go to the running total page, you'll see the list of articles reviewed by all members so far. All of the articles on the worklist are the ones that still need to be reviewed (~800 articles out of the original ~2,800). Whenever an article is passed/failed from the worklist (or placed on hold), it is listed at the running total page. For example, you reviewed Dark matter, and listed it at the running total page (so we can keep tabs of our current progress even if they're on hold). If you had passed/failed the article instead of placing it on hold, you would delete it from the worklist and automatically add it to the running total page. At the conclusion of your review if it is passed/failed, you then delete it from the worklist and update it on the running total page. Let me know if you need any clarification on anything else. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know...

I meant the WP:COMMON dig at 2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study as a joke. Hope you took it that way. ;) — Hunter Kahn _(c) 17:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good snow job

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent edits to the snow article, which helped widdle down the list of things that were needed for improvement to GA. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being from a southern climate, snow really wasn't of a concern. Even in college, we brushed over it, with everything concentrated on sounding profiles. I learned more about snow in 2007 than I did in all the previous years combined, because there was a good set of COMET training modules on the topic. Granted, I just did it so I could work the tropical desk and provide backup points for NHC (which we don't do anymore), but it was good to learn anyway. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FPC delist

Thanks for voting on the FPC, the nomination was closed as keep. However, Redoubt's 1990 eruption is absolutely notable as the second most costly eruption in (north) Americcan history. ceranthor 13:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GSV Sleeper Service

I have done as you suggest. Savidan 05:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declined A7

FYI, I declined your speedy deletion tagging of Subodh Khandekar. The article claims that he was an international hockey player, which asserts notability. If these claims are unverifiable or possibly not true, feel free to take the article to AfD. Best, JamieS93 ^Only You Can Prevent Drama 18:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circle on Cavill and IPs

Hi. Thanks for bringing this issue up on my talk page. On my final reversion, I was on the brink of starting up a discussion rather than reverting it, but for some reason, I chose not to. I agree that I probably did the wrong thing, and I'm glad you've unblocked the IPs to help us sort this out.

To the point. Recently, in the last month, there has been a lot of adding and changing external links on Circle on Cavill, as I'm sure you're aware. It appears it all started up with this edit by Wikiholiday. Before then, there was a jumble of websites, none of which I'm sure about. I'm still not sure which websites are the most appropriate, but Link 1 and Link 2 are the most professional looking. It appears that in this edit, Nja247 believes that these two are also spamlinks. I'm not disagreeing with him, but is it possible that there are no official websites we can add to the article? --timsdad ^(talk) 09:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a possibility that these IPs don't want to negotiate but would rather continue to revert not just mine, but others' edits just to keep the links they want up on the article. I'm referring to this edit. --timsdad ^(talk) 09:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I work for Circle on Cavill and while there is quite a bit going on online. There are only 3 websites that are "official". The first is circleoncavill.com.au, this website will replace circleoncavillretail1.com.au in a few weeks. the circleoncavillsales.com.au is also offical. lastly mantracircleoncavill.com.au is the hotel website.

A look up of trademarks via IP Australia for circle on cavill show's that Stella Hospitality Group and Sunleisure Property Holdings Pty Ltd own trademarks and the above sites are their websites.

I hope this clears things up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.213.41 (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps August update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help Required

I have recently posted a few topics and ideas that can be covered on the subject of the Severe weather article. It's located at the talk page of the article. I though you may check it out and confirm if any of topics can be covered or not and help write them, since you know a lot about the subject and have contributed to the article itself. Thanks. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD-NWS template

Great job on this! It explains it well and hopefully will avoid conflicts in the future. If you're interested, here is one example where a photo "is specifically stated otherwise", 4th photo from the top.

A Minneapolis Tribune Photo (published on the front page of the newspaper on May 7, 1965) of the Fridley tornado. * Photo is Copyright 2005 Star Tribune. Republished with permission of Star Tribune, Minneapolis-St. Paul. No further republication or redistribution is permitted without the written consent of Star Tribune.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mpx/HistoricalEvents/1965May06/index.php

WxGopher (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A&M inputs

Howdy! As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Texas A&M, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Texas A&M University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks and Gig 'em! — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

article

Are you intrested in photography(photographer) or did you just 'Copy' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.149.92.61 (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

To update on the progress of the severe weather article, we have currently reached a path where the main contributors require the help of other Wikipedians. The current structure and organization on this article has numerous issues that needs to be adressed. However, after a lot discussion about the re-organization of the contents, we now are requesting the assistance of others to give suggestions and comments on the structure of the article. Would you mind taking a look and put your perspective into the improvement of the article structure? It would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. (Talk Page link) KnowledgeRequire (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Severe weather RfC

Severe weather The severe weather article is currently undergoing a Request for Comment as to its structure and organization. The RfC can be found here.

Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 19:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Four-State Tornado Swarm

The article Four-State Tornado Swarm you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Four-State Tornado Swarm for things needed to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WPTC Assessment

Hi! Since you have recently posted to WT:WPTC or otherwise been involved with tropical cyclone articles, please nominate and review pages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment so we can revive this process. Thanks in advance, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Delete it. I ended up using the wrong license by using the wrong section of the upload form. Sorry. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for tornado

I have nominated Tornado for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. John Asfukzenski (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado

No problem - i also noticed that their were a couple of deadlinks but i couldnt replace them myself.Jason Rees (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]