User talk:Storm05/Archive 6

Assessments again

Again, please don't change assessments until there is consensus either on the talk page or in any other project-related fora (such as project talk pages or IRC). Hurricane Paul (2006) hasn't been copyedited yet, and it's already been stated that it needs one in order to be B-class. It can't be B-class until it gets it.

As for 1999 Pacific typhoon season, the wikiproject decides how to assess its articles, and what is a stub, a start, A-class, etc. Otherwise, WikiProject Computer and Video Games wouldn't assess its own articles, WikiProject Films wouldn't have created Future-class, and we wouldn't have Current-class. The only things we don't control are GAs and FAs. If consensus is that something is a stub, it is, and that's that until the conditions for it to not be a stub are not met. Please keep this in mind when assessing articles, or it may be seen as disruption, and the appropriate action may be taken. --Coredesat 06:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube videos of TWC

You have recently added links to YouTube videos of The Weather Channel, which are copyrighted (and are thus copyright violations). Wikipedia does not allow copyright violations. Please refrain from further linking to material that may be copyright infringements. – Chacor 14:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[1] Second warning about linking to copyright infringing videos. – Chacor 06:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in case you are, please don't think that I'm specifically targetting you, because I'm not. Wikipedia is cracking down on copyrights (as you may already know from your many image warnings), so we can't afford to let this happen. Cheers, – Chacor 14:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fabian

The images weren't particularly useful for the article; only the damage pictures that were in them. The damage pictures were copyrighted by AP, meaning they aren't usable, so I put them up for deletion. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: AOI's

...Yea? Neither are mentioned by the NHC, so chances for development aren't that high. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:E1971cty.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:E1971cty.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. -- Hurricanehink (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Hurricanehink (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #6

The November issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Angry weatherman

Hehe, that's funny. :) Hurricanehink (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wow

It does look pretty impressive... for an extratropical storm. The storm has little chance of becoming extratropical. The convection, aside from being fairly minimal isn't near the convection. You can see the cold, dry air being entrained in the circulation. While you can never say never, I'd say it's unlikely the NHC would put an invest on it. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, yea, the extratropical storm has become a bit better organized. Look at the satellite: the convection is very far from the center of circulation. Look at the visible: the circulation is wrapping up a lot of cold, dry air. Look at the water temperatures: the storm is over 60 degree waters. This thing has a snowball's chance in hell to develop. The thing to its east (I assume you're talking about the thing between the Lesser Antilles and the Azores) looks a little better and has a slightly better chance to develop into a tropical cyclone, but it still seems unlikely. Transformation from an extratropical storm to a tropical storm is fairly rare. Right now, the thing that has the best shot for development is the area of convection north of Panama. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are the exceptions, not the rule. They all developed convection near their centers as a developing extratropical cyclone. This storm is already a well-developed cyclone without much convection. There's a great difference. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Regarding the Typhoon Wanda (1962) article

That was directed to Mitchazenia, and not to you, but if you want responses I'll give them to you. The article is poorly-written throughout. For your first comment, tropical waves generally don't form in the WPAC. Almost all disturbances form from the monsoon trough or a tropical upper tropospheric trough. Check newer JTWC reports that give parts of the storm history, and let me know how many form from tropical waves. As per the rapid strengthening, there's an entire internet out there which has not been harnessed yet for the article. There might be an AMO paper on it, you never know. Storms back in the 1950s and earlier had some good meteorological history in MWR and AMO papers. I would consider wind speeds impact. Rather than having a stub section that probably can't be expanded, the records could easily be worked into the impact in a paragraph about meteorological. If your criteria for a good article means it is well-written and has a good amount of info and it doesn't rely on the sources, then this doesn't pass that criteria. There's some info in here, but one can't rely almost entirely on one source. There's not even any newspaper sources. I want the author to do more work for the article because, in the past, he has left articles unfinished and in need of a lot of work. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Now i am confused. First of all-no damage was reported for Hainan Island as it made landfall as a weak depression possibly weaker than that or the HKO would've mentioned it. I only added it because it needed at least one sentence there. Second, hink, please don't ridicule me. Third, i have no access to the newer reports. Can someone give it to me?Mitchazenia(7300+edits) 16:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Though I am a little busy at the moment.Mitchazenia(7400+edits) 19:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bad News

Damn... Well, maybe it is just a temporary thing. In the past, they have had something like that up there, so maybe in a few days it will go back to normal... I really hope so, at least. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Images

Please, when uploading images, use a descriptive image name, and avoid generic names based on the name of the file. – Chacor 16:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I hope you know what I mean, because names like "Wea<bunch of numbers>" are not easy to remember or use. It's always better to use a descriptive name. Thanks. – Chacor 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, while I'm here, I might as well also say, where possible, please upload the maximum-resolution version of the images (the largest sized ones). It's better than a small, low-res thumbnail. – Chacor 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just in case you needed an example of that, for Image:Wea00417.jpg, the image you uploaded is the image from the source page. However, note that the source page says a high-resolution image is available. It's preferable to upload that one - the bigger one - rather than a thumb. – Chacor 17:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoax tag on Christian Forums

I noticed that you placed {{hoax}} on the Christian Forums article. Could you please explain your reasoning for that? It doesn't take much to go to www.christianforums.com to see that the site really exists. —Cswrye 19:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• No problem, and thanks for replying so quickly! —Cswrye 19:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

York Rainbow Peace Camp

Hi there, I'm just curious why you tagged this article as a possible hoax? (by the way, I'm the person who nominated the article for deletion discussion, so it's not like I'm lobbying in favour of the article here - just curious about you thought) thanks! Bwithh 04:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

List of rail accidents

There is currently a discussion about whether we should set criteria for inlcusion of accients on the List of rail accidents page, and if so what the criteria should be.

The discussion is located at Talk:List of rail accidents/Criteria for inclusion, where your input would be most welcome. Thryduulf 00:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother

Hey, I think you should save yourself the time. Don't bother with an article... the typhoon itself wasn't notable, while the storm it produced already has an article. – Chacor 15:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's not how we work. The storm is what's notable, not the typhoon - the article is a mess - so clean it up. The typhoon itself did nothing, the storm was totally separate. – Chacor 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Extratropical storm ≠ typhoon. A typhoon is tropical. Extratropical systems that do damage have their own articles - nor'easters are a great example of that. Ask Hink, he'll confirm. Freda doesn't need an article, if you have any additional information add it to the existing one. There is no way the Columbus Day article will be merged "into" a Freda one. – Chacor 15:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, ask Hink. Don't disrupt the way Wikipedia works just to make a point. This isn't how we work, and you should know that. – Chacor 15:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, you are totally missing the point. It can be cleaned up - it's a simple matter of removing whatever isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. WPac fishies are just not notable enough for an article. Indeed, more than likely a Freda article would be redirected TO the one on the Columbus Day storm, and not the other way around. – Chacor 15:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see you've asked Hink... wait for his opinion and others', please, but I need sleep, so I won't be able to respond immediately for now to any more comments you may have. – Chacor 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As 1962 is my best work, i may leave an opinion, but sorry to bother. First of all Freda (tropical) was a worthless Category 3 typhoon and extremely non-notable. No deaths, no damage, no LAND IMPACT, isn't that the one major thing to an article. Wanda and Harriet are the only other two deserving with articles in that season because of their major death rate (Harriet) and major damage rate (Wanda).Mitchazenia(8000+edits) 17:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool, my opinion is wanted. Chacor is exactly right. You really shouldn't bother with this one. Events partially related to tropical cyclones are iffy, but if they're important enough for their own article, they should stay their own article and not be a tropical cyclone article. Remember, we make articles for tropical cyclones, not extratropical storms. There are times when a storm's extratropical remnant caused damage, and the storm got an article (Maria 05 comes to mind). However, Maria's extratropical damage wouldn't warrant its own article. The Colombus Day storm has it own article, and clearly should due to its historical significance. Certainly, Freda should be mentioned in the Colombus Day Storm article, but it was still an extratropical storm event that should remain out of the WPTC (sort of like the perfect storm). Hurricanehink (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What about Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003)? Storm05 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There are some exceptions to the rule, and the extratropical remnant of Nicholas caused so little effects that it is very unlikely it would get an article on its own. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of this discussion until today, busily creating and improving the extratropical storm articles. Take a look at the way I revised/cleaned up the Columbus Day Storm of 1962 article last night and this morning and see if this satisfies all involved. Thegreatdr 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's much better. That's more how I envisioned such an article. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

DO bother

Don't let people on this project discourage you from contibuting or adding articles you think are needed. Every little bit helps. I know there's a bit of NPOV favoring landfalling tropical cyclones over all others, but it honestly shouldn't matter. The project is not called WP: Landfalling tropical cyclones. I don't see your articles as being worse than the remaining stubby hurricane/typhoon season articles that have yet to be filled out from their initial creation months and years ago. If people start getting personal with you, instead of being productive to the articles you create, have them read WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND. Even better, if they think your articles need improvement, tell them to be bold. Wikipedia is not a police state. Thegreatdr 17:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We KNOW about BATTLEGROUND. It wouldn't be a battleground if Storm05 wrote better and didn't always fight back incivilly (you'll find plenty of proof of that around WP). "Be bold"? Yes, we have been bold, and merged his worse articles. We have improved his slightly better ones. But a continuous pattern like this will not be tolerated. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 02:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarify: It should be clarified that we're talking about the article as it was (when it was merged), and I haven't seen, and thus have no opinion, on how the sandbox currently looks. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 02:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about how the article looks now, since he's been modifying it lately. I didn't see its state months ago. Thegreatdr 03:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you should have checked the facts first before resurrecting a months-old discussion in such a provoking manner. – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 03:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello; NHC handling of short-lived systems

I understand your frustration, since I've been watching the tropics and subtropics rather carefully since 1990. The route I've chosen is to contribute to the database revision. If you see a system you think should be started, bring it up in the tropical cyclone talk page on wikipedia and one of us will check it out. Thegreatdr 18:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Assessments

Please do not change assessments to a better grade when they do not meet that criteria. Our criteria for a start class season article is having every storm, and 1990 PHS doesn't have every storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 hours

I've blocked you for 6 hours for disruption. You were warned several times not to change assessments without reason, discussion, or consensus. When your block expires, please keep this in mind. --Coredesat 00:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your link

The link you included was merely for the North Atlantic tropical sector IR loop. What were you trying to show me? Just curious. Thegreatdr 20:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Unfair block

Ive got blocked for six hours by User:Coredesat because other users claim that i changed assessments without assessments without reason, discussion, or consensus. If thats the case then whe we have WP:BOLD then and also it stated in their Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment#Assessment process that 'Current practice is that Stub-Start-B assessments are done by individual editors when looking at an article and that a discussion or concensous is required for further upgrade.

Also, users keep saying their criteria for a start class season article is having every storm and 1990 Pacific hurricane season was marked as a stub even if there was one storm not mentioned. Also the, 1999 Pacific typhoon season was rated as stub even thought there are 20 paragraphs in it. I addressed it on that page but the repsonse was more the same with the;

Once it does, it will probably be B class with a possible FAC run and skip start

Which is incorrect because an article cant skip start class unless its B-Class material from the get go.

If you have any comments related to my message please respond on my talk page, cheers. Storm05 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Storm05, as far as I can tell, you were blocked not for choosing the wrong assessment or categorization. You were blocked for repeatedly setting or changing assessments against community consensus, and despite repeated warnings. Remember that while you may be an expert on tropical storms, Wikipedia works by achieving consensus among editors.

A six-hour block is a very short one; blocks against vandals (which you are not!), for example, are usually no less than 24 hours. The admin who blocked you realizes that you were acting in good faith and are genuinely trying to improve those articles. The purpose of the block was not to punish you, but to allow editors some time to figure out the situation, and prompt you to discuss these assessments first with the other editors before rushing to set/change them. Don't be discouraged by this short block; instead, use this as an opportunity to start a discussion among the editors about the reasons behind your assessments. Remember, you can get much more done by building consensus than you will by fighting it. The Wiki system is not always the most efficient one, but it's the only one that can work with such a vast number of volunteer editors.

And a note to User:Chacor: Any editor with a legitimate concern is welcome to seek my help on my Talk page. When in doubt, please let me decide what stays on my Talk page. Owen× ☎ 22:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Dora (1999)

How come you never published that? It turned out better than I thought it would be. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should become an article too. Thegreatdr 17:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bob91newspap.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bob91newspap.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)