User talk:DavidH

Welcome to talk for DavidH

Please feel free to post questions, comments, requests for information or editing help.

A lot of my efforts here are of the copyediting/cleanup sort. You may leave me an e-mail address if you want a private/personal reply. I will edit this page every so often to remove old posts and of course reserve the right to remove offensive junk and spam. Thanks for playing.

Talk archive page

Railroad

Check the 1906 Monthly Weather Review. On page 9, it will tell you that, in exact words: "The storm caught most of the several hundred laborers and mechanics of the railway extention in houseboats and other clumsy craft moored to piling as their living quarters." It goes on to say: "The loss of life among these men was about 135." Thus I firmly stand by my previous statement.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from. But I believe that the storm washed away part of the completed railroad. This meant that they had to stop work on continuing the railroad to fix the part that was washed away. That one line is where that heading came from. I used the headings to help tell the story. I'm an author, and I feel a little dramatic effect is warrented so long as it does not compromise the authenticity of the article. Was part of the railroad washed away or not? If it was not, then the article needs to be revised.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 17:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The evacuation train actually stayed on land, just not on the tracks. I'll have to plot and scheme about the heading. If it gets changed, it will probably be next week (or later this week if you count Sunday as the first day of the week). Thanks for the input. That happens to be the most extensive article that I have written in Wikipedia.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking of alternatives. How about replacing 'destroyed' with 'ravaged'. That seems like a more apt term to me. Do you agree?

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 03:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rickyboy

I appreciate your attempts at peacemaking, but he's a bad egg. Two minutes after I questioned his authorship claim on image:Where_hurricanes_strike.gif, which has quite clearly been sourced to World Book Online [1], he re-added it to the article, while blanking a large portion. I've blocked the account indefinitely for vandalism of the worst sort. -- Cyrius|✎ 09:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The bible

Firstly let me say that I am sorry to have to bother you.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Wikipedia:Bible verses.

~~~~ 18:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coriolis effect article

Hi David,

thanks for copyediting the article, that was needed. Maybe there are one or two edits that I need to think about whether I agree.

As you can see on the Talk:Coriolis effect page, William M Connolley seems to doubt the explanations in the article. If his doubts persist, will you then speak out in support of the content of the article? Can you maybe advise me on how to go about with references to the article?

In terms of content there is nothing new in the article, no new research, just plain newtonian dynamics. On the other hand, the didactic approach in the article is novel, I think. Do you know whether there is a wikipedia policy about novel didactic approaches? --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 08:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My main area of interest regarding the Coriolis topic is tropical cyclones, but in meteorology there seems to be more going on than Newtonian mechanics (or maybe not?). DavidH 18:26, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

No, Newtonian mechanics is sufficient, and Newtonian thinking is suffictient. When meteorologists perform calculations then these calculations are strictly Newtonian calculations. (Some meteorologists may not acknowledge the newtonian explanation, but all meteorologist apply newtonian equations in their computermodels, otherwise the models wouldn't work.)

Can I persuade you to not only edit stylistically, but to also try and think through the logic of it all? Having immersed myself in the subject, it all seems rather straightforward to me. Surely it is not that difficult. I need to find support for the article. It matters a lot to me. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 21:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Vote

Hate to trouble you again, but a category on Wikipedia:Bible verses was recently added, 'A vast minority', and it seems that your vote probably would have gone there had it been there when you voted. Almafeta 17:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas DC-10

Thanks for your comments.

The "illiterate employee" is the recipient of a "describing" action. The sentence reads:

'McDonnell Douglas attempted to place the blame on the employee, whom they described as "illiterate", and deflected criticism of the aircraft design itself.'

McDonnell Douglas is the subject, the employee the object. Only "whom" is appropriate with an object. User:Rhombus 2 December 2024

Hi -- in reply to your response: "Illiterate" is an adjective -- it describes the noun, in this case, the object (which is the employee). The employee is *not* performing an action. The employee is being described as illiterate. McDonnell Douglas is describing (subject, who), the employee is being described (object, whom).

I think the reason why "whom" seems wrong so often is that people just don't use it when it should be used.

Here's another example of mangled grammar that has been used so often people think it's correct: "I wish I was omnipotent." Just for laughs - can you see the error? User:Rhombus 2 December 2024

The link to your user page turned up a blank; thought I had posted there before(?) Anyway, I wish I was omnipotent would literally be past tense: "I wish I was (no longer) omnipotent." Strictly speaking, if you are wishing to be omnipotent, it should be in subjunctive tense to indicate a condition that isn't true: I wish I were omnipotent. Is that what you were referring to? Cheers. DavidH 18:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

RE: TIFF

Took me a while to figure out how to respond to your message. I hope this is how it works; never done this.

I'll make the changes as you suggested. I just wanted to mention the benefits of TIFF's lossless capabilites. I still feel using JPEG as a comparison is a good idea, but if you wish to change it to something more appropriate, ny all means go ahead an do so. Thx. --Metron4 22:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Are you new?

XD No, the really obsessed users would have 500+ edits by now. I'm fairly new, but it was easy to catch on. Welcoming is fun! Nobody should have an empty talk page. There's nothing greater than the feeling one gets when he or she sees that 'You have new messages.' sign. Thanks for the message! I hope you do write that article. Let me know when you do! :P Ryan 09:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, you can quote me.

I’m 15 years old, but by the time you write this, I’ll be 16. I live on the east coast of the United States. I’ll be a junior in high school in the fall. My interests include volunteering and trivia. I do college bowl at my school. While I’m far from athletic, I enjoy basketball and golf.

I’ve known about Wikipedia for a few months, but I didn’t take an interest in editing until someone on Neopets.com brought the Neopets article up. (At this time, I had an account on Neopets and posted frequently on the Battledome Chat.) This user said we should update the Neopets article so that it favors the Battledome Chat. I, and many users, joined in. It turned into an edit war: The Battledome Chat vs. The Administrators. It ended when they protected the article. I, however, wasn’t done. I got some sort of thrill from vandalizing. So, I created a new account and starting moving pages around until I had created a big, tangled web of articles. I was blocked indefinitely, and the mess was sorted out. I had a change of heart the next night. I realized that by editing many articles, surely I would pick up a lot of useful knowledge for school and for college bowl. So, here I am now. My vandalizing past is behind me.

At the moment, I mostly welcome new users and contribute minor edits. I have written a few articles, such as Twisted Desire and Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly, but at this time, they are merely stubs. I also use the Random Page feature to find and mark stubs. I spend between four and five years a night doing this, until with reading some articles that catch my interest. I have some time on my hands, since it is summer. I probably won’t be as active in the fall.

I love the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia. After all, “many hands make little work.” But the best part is how easy and painless it is to revert vandalism. Since pages are stored in the History database, nobody’s hard work is wasted.

Wikipedia is addictive because I feel people have a constant yearning for knowledge. What better way is there to increase your mental capacity? In order to make major edits, we have to read the articles first. You look at a textbook or a normal encyclopedia, and you’ll see two, three, or a few more authors. You look at Wikipedia, and you’ll see tens of thousands of authors. It’s hard to believe that I help write and rewrite an encyclopedia, but the system is set up in such a way that it is a simple task.

I hope you found this useful. Good luck with your article! Ryan 23:45, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I know. I was a bad, bad boy. :-( Ryan 00:05, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Stylistic editing should only edit stlyle

Hi David, I hadn't checked your revisions thoroughly, but I discovered that I should have. This is an origianal paragraph:

What happens to air flow that initially starts flowing from West to East is analogous to what is shown in the second animation of the mechanics section. Because of the extra velocity on top of the normal velocity from co-rotating with the Earth as whole, the air mass will tend to slide away from the Earth's axis of rotation.

And this is your version of it:

What happens to air flow that initially flows from west to east is analogous to that shown in the second animation of the Mechanics section. Because of the extra velocity from co-rotating with the Earth as whole, the air mass will tend to slide away from the Earth's axis of rotation.

Unfortunately, your version is wrong, you have changed the content of the paragraph into wrong content.

If you do another pass on the article, please make absolutely sure you do not change physics content.

Let me try to explain the difference.
Some car racing circuits have steeped banks (do I use the correct expression? Positive camber?) The corner has a slope, so that the cars can go through the corner faster than would be possible of the road would be level everywhere. Of course the race drivers go as fast as possible through that corner. They go to the limit of the grip of the tires, if they would go just a couple of mph faster the cars would start drifting outside, at worst drifting off the circuit.
The Earth is rotating, and the air is co-moving with the Earth, so the air is moving fast, going through a wide circle all around the Earth's axis. If a pressure gradient gives the air some extra velocity on top of that, then the air will drift outside.
--Cleon Teunissen | Talk 07:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that by shortening it I made it incorrect. DavidH 10:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

It is one of the hardest pieces to write. For one thing, I'm juggling points of view there. I'm referring all the time to "circumnavigating the Earth's axis", which is an overall point of view, but suddenly it says, 'is deflected to its right' wich is a very zoomed in point of view, and co-moving with the Earth. I want it to be correct physics, and yet not too cumbersome, which may be an impossible combination.

I think I will rely on the two animations of the Mechanics section as examples instead of invoking yet another image: cars negotiating curves.

The other edit I think I will reverse is about the person in the swivel chair. When the swivel chair is rotating then moving the weights in or out has a consequence: change of angular velocity. When the swivel chair is not rotating then the only effort needed for the weights is the effort to lift them, moving them in or out does not change angular velocity then. Same problem: the explanation that dots the i's sounds cumbersome.

About language: I don't know when to write 'toward' or 'towards'. My language skill goes blank there.--Cleon Teunissen | Talk 10:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

toward/s

Either is OK, but in AP style no "s" is preferred, so that's what I do. I go forward, I go backward, I go toward. Or landward, shoreward, seaward, northward, upward, downward, and so on.

I tell you, the banked car track is something most people understand (NASCAR racing so big in US now), so if it applies, it could help. But since the track isn't rotating, I guess that's only simple angular momentum, not Coriolis at all. DavidH 11:04, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Cleon_Teunissen"

Thanks for the welcome

Hello DavidH, Thank you for the message and the links, they should come in very handy. Thanks again. Greaterlondoner

Chicago Edits

Hi, I saw your changes to the intro of the Chicago article and I think that they are very well done. I was trying for some time to rewrite the intro, but could never really come up with a good way to do it. I am especially thankful since the old intro was one of the objections raised on the Chicago FAC page and was always, IMO one of the weakest parts on the article. Thanks Again and Good Work, --Gpyoung ^talk 19:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible useful link

Hi, DavidH. I responded to your concerns on my talk page. Func( t, c ) 14:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Useful links

Hello DavidH. Culd you give me a list of all different codes needed with articles so as to do such things as report for deletion, mergers, disputes etc. I have found several articles that may need to have these links added for discussion. Thanks. Please reply on my talk page. I have added a title to my previous message where I thanked you for the welcome message. Greaterlondoner

Thank You

David,

I appreciate your comments and realize that I made an error, sorry for the daft mistake. Without coming off as a complete jerk I would like to tell you that it is my belief (and that of many others) that the true power of Open Source knowledge is through it's members. Pointing out my simple mistakes rather than just fixing them does nothing to help the situation except point out how poor I can be with grammar. There are Wikipedians who are grammar kings and Wikipedians who are reference kings and so on and so forth. While, I appreciate you pointing this out the point is it will fix itself. I would encourage you to just make the corrections rather than point them out. I'm not asking you to be my spell checker per se, it would just be more productive for all of us.

Jasenlee 05:13, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

==Sound bomb and Light bomb VfD==

Sound bomb and Light Bomb where re-created by the author after I converted them to redirects. Would you consider voting for there deletion. Thanks Megapixie 09:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles For Deletion

Hi, a while ago you made some comments about the presence of bible-verse articles, and/or source texts of the bible, and you may therefore be interested in related new discussions:

A discussion about 200 articles, one each for the first 200 verses of Matthew - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
A discussion about 18 articles, one each for the first 18 verses of John 20 - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20
A discussion about whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters - Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 18:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Color printing

So that's how half-toning works. I've always wondered... Thank you for making my day! JackyR 15:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject! I see you have made some random edits to hurricane articles, and us at the project are glad you decided to join us. There are numerous ongoing projects, including improving existing retired hurricane articles and adding content to older seasons, though any way you can help us would be great. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or prose a question at our headquarters. Have fun, and see you around. Hurricanehink 17:37, 9 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 [2]. DavidH 18:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Hurricanehink"

Glad to hear about the Florida Keys interest. Agreed about the 2005 intro, but I prefer to stay away from the modern stuff. Most of what I work on is older (basically before 2000) Atlantic stuff or other basins. Interesting writing is always great, but unfortunately, this is an encyclopedia and not a book, as some have said. There's always some happy medium. By the way, nice work on the 1846 Havana Hurricane article. Hurricanehink 20:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please help fix links

Hello. Since you moved an article to effect of sun angle on climate, could you help fix the links that consequently now go throught the redirect page that you thus created? Go to effect of sun angle on climate and you'll see what I mean. Michael Hardy 01:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh -- I see you've started on that. Michael Hardy 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2

Sorry about that, it was caused by the IRC recent changes feed giving incorrect diff links and because the bot uses that information to determine who to revert, it would revert to the older version and warn the wrong person. I've alerted the devs and they're looking into it, sorry about that and thanks for fixing it. -- Tawker 00:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, I noticed that and I realized that saying vandalism is a little harsh, it now reads like (BOT - Reverted edit by User talk:81.170.58.67 (44707454) - reverted to User talk:65.120.153.52 (44700760)) - I hope thats a bit better :) -- Tawker 00:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List article first sentences

Something I don't get, some say Wikistyle demands. List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes had this first sentence:

This is a list of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes.

"Well, duh" I think. Isn't that awkward and redundant (and inaccurate, see below). I changed it twice (different revisions), got reverted both times. I understand a guideline that most articles -- Physics and Abraham Lincoln -- should have the "title" in the first sentence. But starting articles "This is a list of" when the title is "List of..." seems so odd.

Might be a bit better if the first sentence expands on the title: This is a list of storms that achieved Category 5 status (winds of 155 mph) in the Atlantic basin. But I still dislike "This is (whatever title says it is)..." as a first sentence.

As alternatives, I like Hurricanes reach category 5 intensity on average about once every three years in the Atlantic. Or, A Category 5 hurricane is one with winds exceeding 155 mph. It's what I'd expect a good encyclopedia to put after the heading.

In this article and probably many others, The phrasing also seems inaccurate; the hurricane list article contains three lists (storms ranked by different criteria). It also includes multiple expository paragraphs, so it's not a list nor is it only a list. The article List of volcanoes begins, "This is a list of active and extinct volcanoes." -- followed by dozens of lists.

Thoughts? Is it accurate to write "This is a list of..." when more than one list follows? Is it really best to have "This is a list of..." for a first sentence? DavidH 19:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TC Intro

Moving the terms out of the lead sentence was a good idea, but the remainder of the edit just seems jumbled to me. Too much detail, maybe. --Golbez 19:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brokeback intro edit

Here is an attempt to revise the intro to Brokeback Mountain:

Brokeback Mountain is the title of a widely acclaimed short story by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Annie Proulx and a film adaptation directed by Ang Lee. The story depicts a sexual, romantic, and emotional relationship between two men in the American west from 1963 to 1983.

The film of Brokeback Mountain, released in 2005 by Focus Features, stars Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, Anne Hathaway, Michelle Williams, and Randy Quaid. It was honored at the 2006 Academy Awards, BAFTA, and Golden Globe awards. The movie had the most nominations, eight, for the 78th Academy Awards and was widely seen as a frontrunner for Best Picture (which was awarded to Crash). The film won three Oscars, including Best Director, Best Original Score, and Best Adapted Screenplay.

The short story first appeared in The New Yorker in October 1997 and was subsequently included in a published anthology, Close Range: Wyoming Stories (1999). The screenplay adaptation was written by Diana Ossana (co-producer of the film) and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Larry McMurtry.

Responding to your note

You will note that my username is based on that city in Wyoming! I think that saying that BBM lost out to Trash, I mean Crash repeats the slander imposed on such a cinematic gem like BBM! River 01:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would post here too. I chose "Rivertonplain" because of my love for BBM, but unfortunately I live in Missouri and am not as lucky as you are to live in the Florida Keys. I imagine that it is beautiful down there when you are not dodging hurricanes. River 01:46, 22 April 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) 20:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #1

Number 1, June 4, 2006

The Hurricane Herald

This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The Hurricane Herald aims to give a summary of the activities of the WikiProject over the past month and upcoming events over the next month. In addition monthly tropical cyclone activity will be summarized.

You have received this as you are a member of the WikiProject, please add your username in the appropriate section on the mailing list. If you do not add your name to that list, the WikiProject will assume you do not wish to receive future versions of The Hurricane Herald. Sorry if the newsletter breaks your talk page formatting.

Storm of the month

Typhoon Chanchu was the first typhoon and first super typhoon of the 2006 Pacific typhoon season. Forming on May 9 over the open western Pacific Ocean, Chanchu moved over the Philippines on the 11th. There, it dropped heavy rainfall, causing mudslides, crop damage, and 41 deaths. It moved into the South China Sea, where it rapidly strengthened to a super typhoon on May 14, one of only two super typhoons recorded in the sea. It turned to the north, weakened, and struck the Fujian province of China as a minimal typhoon on the 17th. The typhoon flooded 192 houses, while heavy rainfall caused deadly mudslides. In China, Chanchu caused at least 25 deaths and $480 million in damage (2006 USD). Elsewhere on its path, strong waves from the typhoon sank eleven Vietnamese ships, killing at least 44 people. In Taiwan, heavy rainfall killed two people, while in Japan, severe waves killed one person and injured another.

Other tropical cyclone activity

Tropical Storm Aletta existed in the eastern Pacific Ocean from May 25 to May 29, peaking as a 45 mph tropical storm.

New and improved articles

New storm articles include: Typhoon Joan (1970), Hurricane Bonnie (1986), Tropical Storm Matthew (2004), Storm of October 1804, Typhoon Chanchu (2006) and Cyclone Olaf.

New non-storm articles include: Tropical cyclone rainfall climatology, Dvorak technique and List of Bangladesh tropical cyclones.

New Featured articles: 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Hurricane Mitch, Hurricane Irene (2005) and Hurricane Claudette (2003)

Articles which became A/GA class: Hurricane Katrina (A), Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans (A), Hurricane Felix (1995) (GA), Cyclone Percy (A), Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 (A), List of New Jersey hurricanes (A), Hurricane John (1994) (A), Tropical Storm Isabel (1985) (GA), Tropical Storm Odette (2003) (GA)

New articles and improvements wanted

An article is requested on subtropical ridge
The current collaboration of the fortnight is Hurricane Gilbert, please help improve this article.
Improvements are requested to Indianola Hurricane of 1886, Hurricane Camille and Hurricane Andrew.
The WikiProject is likely to submit Hurricane John (1994) and Hurricane Katrina to Featured Article Candidates in the near future, so please help improve them to featured standard.

Member of the month

This isn't the generic barnstar, we just don't have a WPTC star yet…

The May member of the month is TitoXD. The WikiProject awards this to him for his brilliant work in improving articles. TitoXD joined the WikiProject in October just after it had been founded. Since then he has contributed substantially to many articles, for example Hurricane Nora (1997), which is currently a Featured Article Candidate. He is also actively involved in the assessment of articles and so helps to improve many more articles.

Explanation of content

If you have a topic which is not directly related to any specific article but is relevant to the WikiProject bring it up on the Newsletters talk page, and it will probably be included in a future edition of The Hurricane Herald.

These two sections are decided by the community on the newsletter's talk page:

Storm of the month: This is determined by a straw poll on the page. While all storms will be mentioned on the newsletter, the selected storm will be described in more detail.
Member of the month: Nominations are made on the talk page, voting is by secret ballot; read the talk page for details. The winner receives the WikiProject's barnstar (when we make it).

Main Page content

2005 Atlantic hurricane season appeared on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on June 1.
Hurricane Floyd will appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on June 17.
Entries from Dvorak technique, Typhoon Joan (1970), Typhoon Chanchu (2006), and Storm of October 1804 appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know column during May.
Entries from 5 other articles relating to tropical cyclones had appeared in the Did you know column earlier in 2006.

Storm article statistics

Grade	April	May	June
FA	7	7	10
A	4	5	7
GA	0	3	5
B	62	66	82
Start	154	177	168
Stub	13	12	10
Total	240	263	282
percentage ≥Less than B	69.6	71.6	63.1

The assessment scale

The cyclone assessment scale is one of the bases of the new assessment scale for Version 1.0 of Wikipedia. It splits articles into several categories by quality, to identify which articles are "finished" and which ones still need to be improved.
The assessment scale by itself counts of several grades:
- FA: reserved for articles that have been identified as featured content only.
- A: this grade is given to articles that are considered ready for Wikipedia:peer review. The way to get this grade assigned to an article is by asking other cyclone editors at the WikiProject's assessment page.
- GA: reserved for articles that have passed a good article nomination.
- B: these articles are "halfway there", and have most of the details of a complete article, yet it still has significant gaps in its coverage.
- Start: articles that fall in this category have a decent amount of content, yet it is weak in many areas. Be bold and feel free to improve them!
- Stub: these articles are mostly placeholders, and may in some cases be useless for the reader. It needs a lot of work to be brought to A-Class level.
The way to use these assessments is by adding a parameter to the WikiProject template on the articles talk page ({{hurricane|class=B}} as an example). This feeds the article into a category which is read and parsed to create an assessment table, summary and log.

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #2

The July 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) 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing Wiki

Hi david,

My name is johnsee and I'm trying to track down people keen on both sailing and wiki's to help with a new collborative sailing wiki. It's CC licensed, and a community project (mostly of sailing bloggers) and completely non profit. If I could interest you in helping out the wiki is here. If not, I apologise for stealing a few lines of room on your talk page :)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #3

The August 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, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHICOTW

I see your user name listed as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago. I do not know if you are aware that we are attempting to revive the CHICOTW. See our results history. We could use additional input in nominating future articles, voting on nominees and editing winning nominees. Should you contribute you will receive weekly notices like the following:

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Rich Melman has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have you aboard !

Fair use rationale for Image:Beausoleil-porch.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Beausoleil-porch.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 08:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPTC Active Members

User:Hurricanehink/Active

Better source request for Image:Betsy-track.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Betsy-track.gif. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly ^hi! 04:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHICAGO survey

WP:CHICAGO

You have been marked as an inactive member of WP:CHICAGO since you have not updated your status at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please correct your status. If you consider yourself a member you may want to get involved in the Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3. Also, if you are a member, be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Canvas-x-ss-50.gif

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Canvas-x-ss-50.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beausoleil and Grateful Dead-question

" Beausoleil appears regularly on Garrison Keillor's Prairie Home Companion radio show. Keillor has hailed the group as the "best Cajun band in the world." Beausoleil has also performed in concert with Mary Chapin Carpenter and opened for the Grateful Dead."

Hi David, I am interested to know where the above statement about this band opening for the Grateful Dead came from. There are no footnotes in this graph.

I apologize for not putting links in here, it's been a very long time since I was a Wikipedia editor. Cheers, Marcia W You can email me at:

Wolfsbane AT Sonic.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.71.236 (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How directness of sunlight causes warmer weather listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect How directness of sunlight causes warmer weather. Since you had some involvement with the How directness of sunlight causes warmer weather redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GZWDer (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]