User talk:Storm05/Archive 4

NOT AGAIN!!

Someone please unblock me again because, some stupid person (possible the same anon erlier) tried to use a username of a blocked user, Please tell that person any new commer that creating usernamnes that are used by vandals or inapporpate will be blocked. Storm05 19:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it, it's taking me a while to find it in the autoblock list... (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it anywhere dating back to the original block of @@@@. I'll leave your unblock requests for another admin, but I'm not sure you have your information quite right... (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pics

"Nevermind, their policy states that anything on their website is public domain. So is this fair use? Storm05 16:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)" No, it's not fair use, it's public domain. You can do whatever you want with them. --Golbez 16:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hurricane Devon

Where precisely do you think it shoud be discussed? I can't understand why you think this matter should be discussed there. Since I would like to speak with Hurricane Devon regarding his uploading of copyrighted work and his lack of civility towards other editors, the logical place is his talk page. I don't think it would be appropriate to discuss his misbehavior on another page, and I don't think it would be an effective form of communication with him. I don't believe I ever mentioned personal attacks. I'm not sure what the situation is or what you feel relates to it, but as far as I'm concerned, disrespect towards other users is a problem and is a situtation with which I am concerned. Without respect, communication is difficult, and without adequate communication, it is difficult to address other problems. There are plenty of good reasons for Devon to be blocked indefinitely: 1) repeated copyright violations despite being warned, 2) harrassment of other users, and 3) death threats towards other editors. Each of these in isolation could merit an indefinite block. In particular, someone could block him for [1] alone. Yet my block is intended to be preventitive, not punitive. I think Devon makes some good edits and hopefully he still considers me a friend. Were I to refrain from getting involved, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hurricane Devon would certainly result in a permanent block, though the proceedings might drag out for a bit and would probably cause Devon more stress before the block. By blocking him now, I hope to accomplish several things. One, I need to prevent him from doing even more damage to his case, until I get a chance to work with him. Two, he needs to see that this is a serious matter; I may need to provide some inducement for him to address/improve these issues. And three, I wish to head off his inevitable block. By blocking him now, I can work with him and hopefully remove the block when these issues have been addressed. It is unlikely others would be as open to rehabilitation or removing their blocks, and in fact there are probably some users who are not happy I am trying to keep Devon editing here. But I like him and want to help redirect his efforts to more productive avenues. I hope I don't sound too arrogant or paternalistic, but Devon cannot continue editing as he has been and I wish to do what I can to salvage the situation. I invite your feedback. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Josephine (1996)

Looking at the old version of [Tropical Storm Josephine (1996)], this storm was probably notable enough to stay. However, the article quality is only mediocre. I'm sure if you did a little bit of work on it, it could be B class. This way, your previous work on the article wouldn't be for naught. The same could potentially go for other storms of yours, as the notability requirement, the reason most of your articles were merged, is now gone. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: E Brown

Really good question. I was recently wondering where he was. I hope he's alright. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Andrew Aftermath

The paragraphs you added were full of spelling and grammatical errors. Also I didn't feel parts of it flowed very well, please see my changes. Overall though a good addition to the article and a good source. TimL 21:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Javier

I see you are working on a Hurricane Javier article. Good luck with that. Here's some links that might be helpful. Some were translated into English from Spanish, so they might not make sense.

Maximum rainfall total in Mexico (Spanish) (88 mm)
Preparations Info (Spanish)
3 fishermen missing (Spanish)
Baja California Road Damage
[2]
Raw data in Arizona- This is potentially useful. You could mention that the hurricane lowered the high temperatures, for example.
Summary of season- Not too much here, but you could mention that Javier was one of only two storms in the season to have recorded winds of TS force
Lessened precipitation deficits in southwest US and boosted topsoil moisture
Aiding in ending Drought
Model Path Predictions, and how bad they were in the beginning

Hopefully that can help a bit. Unfortunately, most of the links only have one or two facts to mention in the potential article. Good luck with it. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links are down

The links to the 1986 Atlantic hurricane season , Tropical Storm Bret (1993) and the Talk:Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones are down and I dont know when when they are fixed and up and running again, ask an adminstrator about this. Storm05 15:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad you said this. I thought something was wrong with my computer. I tried responding on your talk page, but apparently, a lot of links are down. I have no idea how long it will be, but I hope it's fixed soon. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I think they are working again. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TD 11, Cyclone1

You like that page? Thanx! I love feedback. Glad someone looks at my subpages. →Cyclone1→ 19:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical hurri...what?

Why did you clear out your hypothetical hurricanes? They were so cool! They inspiered me to make two of my own! Oh, well its your subpage. →Cyclone1→ 01:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article formatting

Dear Tropical cyclone editor,

As a member of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject, you are receiving this message to describe how you can better tropical cyclone articles. There are hundreds of tropical cyclone articles, though many of them are poorly organized and lacking in information. Using the existing featured articles as a guide line, here is the basic format for the ideal tropical cyclone article.

Infobox- Whenever possible, the infobox should have a picture for the tropical cyclone. The picture can be any uploaded picture about the storm, though ideally it should be a satellite shot of the system. If that is not available, damage pictures, either during the storm or after the storm, are suitable. In the area that says Formed, indicate the date on which the storm first developed into a tropical depression. In the area that says Dissipated, indicate the date on which the storm lost its tropical characteristics. This includes when the storm became extratropical, or if it dissipated. If the storm dissipated and reformed, include the original start date and the final end date. Highest winds should be the local unit of measurement for speed (mph in non-metric countries, km/h in metric countries), with the other unit in parenthesis. The lowest pressure should be in mbars. Damages should, when available, be in the year of impact, then the present year. The unit of currency can be at your discretion, though typically it should be in USD. Fatalities indicate direct deaths first, then indirect deaths. Areas affected should only be major areas of impact. Specific islands or cities should only be mentioned if majority of the cyclone's effects occurred there.
Intro- The intro for every article should be, at a minimum, 2 paragraphs. For more impacting hurricanes, it should be 3. The first should describe the storm in general, including a link to the seasonal article, its number in the season, and other statistics. The second should include a brief storm history, while the third should be impact.
Storm history- The storm history should be a decent length, relatively proportional to the longevity of the storm. Generally speaking, the first paragraph should be the origins of the storm, leading to the system reaching tropical storm status. The second should be the storm reaching its peak. The third should be post-peak until landfall and dissipation. This section is very flexible, depending on meteorological conditions, but it should generally be around 3. Storm histories can be longer than three paragraphs, though they should be less than five. Anything more becomes excessive. Remember, all storm impacts, preparations, and records can go elsewhere. Additional pictures are useful here. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its peak, use a landfall picture in the storm history. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its landfall, use the peak. If the landfall is its peak, use a secondary peak, or even a random point in the storm's history.
Preparations- The preparations section can be any length, depending on the amount of preparations taken by people for the storm. Hurricane watches and warnings need to be mentioned here, as well as the number of people evacuated from the coast. Include numbers of shelters, and other info you can find on how people prepared for the storm.
Impact- For landfalling storms, the impact section should be the majority of the article. First, if the storm caused deaths in multiple areas, a death table would work well in the top level impact section. A paragraph of the general effects of the storm is also needed. After the intro paragraph, impact should be broken up by each major area. It depends on the information, but sections should be at least one paragraph, if not more. In the major impact areas, the first paragraph should be devoted to meteorological statistics, including rainfall totals, peak wind gusts on land, storm surge, wave heights, beach erosion, and tornadoes. The second should be actual damage. Possible additional paragraphs could be detailed information on crop damage or specifics. Death and damage tolls should be at the end. Pictures are needed, as well. Ideally, there would be at least one picture for each sub-section in the impact, though this sometimes can't happen. For storms that impact the United States or United States territories, this site can be used for rainfall data, including an image of rainfall totals.
Aftermath- The aftermath section should describe foreign aid, national aid, reconstruction, short-term and long-term environmental effects, and disease. Also, the storm's retirement information, whether it happened or not, should be mentioned here.
Records- This is optional, but can't hurt to be included.
Other- The ideal article should have inline sourcing, with the {{cite web}} formatting being preferable. Always double check your writing and make sure it makes sense.

Good luck with future writing, and if you have a question about the above, don't hesitate to ask.

Hurricanehink (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]