User talk:Storm05/Archive 5

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

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.

[edit] A possible job for you

Please take no offense by any of the following. I was just looking over at the Simple English Wikipedia, and it is really lacking in hurricane articles. I notice some of your writing is a little simplistic, and you are interested in article creating. The articles are about done here, but there's a world of articles for you to make there. You are too valuable of an asset to have waiting around here, as what we're mostly doing is making small changes to get articles to FA class. Looking at your passion for tropical cyclones, you should consider it. It will need to get done eventually, and I'm sure there would be other people around here to help out there. I mean no offense by this, but your writing is a little too simplistic for here in places. On the Simple English Wikipedia, your work would be extremely appreciated, and you can write on just about anything about tropical cyclones (nothing fake, of course). All you would have to do is make sure you use short sentences and a spell checker. Give it a thought, and let me know what you think. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:33 UTC (2006-06-06)

[edit] Hey!

Get your own name for your archives :P Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 00:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical Storm Hanna (2002)

The tag is so that an admin can fix the cut and paste move you carried out (you should have moved the page). The edit history is important to keep, which is why the history-merge is needed. The actual technicalities of doing that need the page deleted and restored, hence the speedy (the article will be recreated again in a few minutes).--Nilfanion (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no point to doing those redirects, it requires admin powers to fix things a simple redirect doesn't do that.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm no. The fact is for Cyclone Percy say most of its history is at your subpage. Look at the articles history and compare it to the history of the userpage. The early edit history of the article for example this one is assigned to the userpage. It requires an admin to reassign that old version of the page to the article. In future can you use the "move" function?--Nilfanion (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, this was brought up to my attention. For legal purposes, we need to have the history of a page as intact as possible. The text of the GNU Free Documentation License, which controls all the content that is posted on Wikipedia, explicitly requires us to do that. As a result, cut-and-paste moves are prohibited, and they are one of the criteria for speedy deletion. As Nilfanion points out above, there is a problem with Cyclone Percy too; in fact, I'll have to delete the article so I can merge the page histories again. In the future, just use the move tab on a redlinked page, it is less work for everyone, and since you have more than four days on Wikipedia, there's no reason MediaWiki shouldn't let you do it. If the software doesn't let you, because a redirect is already there, or something like that, you can just poke any of your neighborhood friendly administrators, who will gladly do that for you. For now, I need a list of which articles you moved that way, so I can fix them sooner rather than later. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plane crash

I hear about small, private planes crashing all the time. Sometimes they're fatal. Sometimes life sits on your head like that. I can't see anything overly notable about it. It sucks that it happened but I certainly haven't heard of it so I doubt there were any severe social and/or psycological reprocussions of it, as there would be with a larger and more notable plane crash. I'm sorry, I just support something I don't believe. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 18:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I agree. There's no real need for it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Brose71.JPG

Does the website you got the rose1971 image from have a copyright, but we're allowed to use it? Because I got an image from the same site, included a source and that it was copyrighted but we were allowed to use it, and now it's on the Wikipedia:Possibly Unfree Images! Yours might end up there too if you or I can't prove we can use the image. So plz find out. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 13:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello?? íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 14:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nvm, my image is gone. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 19:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Kate-002.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kate-002.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you repeat that in laymans terms please? Storm05 16:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

When you uploaded the image, you tagged it with {{PD-USGov}}, which makes a claim that the image was created by the United States federal government and is therefore in the public domain. Such images are perfectly acceptable to use on Wikipedia.

However, it appears that Image:Kate-002.jpg was not created by the United States federal government, but rather by the government of the State of Florida. The state governments and their agencies are allowed to hold copyrights, unlike the federal government. So we need to make sure that we can legally use this image on Wikipedia.

There are three acceptable possibilities (assuming that this image was indeed created by the State of Florida):

1. Maybe the State of Florida does not hold any copyright to this image, and therefore it is in the public domain. This seems unlikely, though, since there is no tag for images created by the State of Florida in the list at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Public domain. If you can find evidence that it is indeed in the public domain, then you can use the tag {{PD-because|reason}}, giving the reason for the public domain claim.
2. Perhaps the State of Florida is willing to license this image under a free license, such as the GFDL. You will need to contact the State of Florida and receive permission to license the image in such a way; some example requests for permission can be found at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Please note that it is not sufficient to just get permission to use the image on Wikipedia, since the goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use in any way (and thus the images need to be usable by anybody, not just Wikipedia). For the same reason, it is also not sufficient to get permission to use the image for non-commercial use only.
3. The use of this image on Wikipedia may fall under fair use, if it satisfies the conditions given in the Wikipedia fair-use policy. In this case, you will want to tag this image with an appropriate fair-use tag.

If none of these three possibilities holds, then unfortunately we cannot use this image on Wikipedia, and it will need to be deleted. Please let me know if you need help or have any questions.

Also, what parts of my first notice did you find confusing? I used the text at Template:Image copyright, and if it's confusing then it needs to be changed. It is meant to give a clear description of the problem and an idea of how to fix it, but if you didn't understand it then it's clearly not doing its job. —Bkell (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Season articles

Just to let you know, season articles aren't start class until every storm has at least a one-sentence description. The 2000 Pacific hurricane season, while fairly detailed, lacks info on every storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting user namespace redirects

You have created a few articles by creating a subpage of your user page and then moving the subpage to the main namespace when you are finished. I noticed that this has left quite a few redirects from subpages of yours to articles. Have you heard of :delete? By adding it to those old redirects, (like this: {{subst:Delete}}) you can delete those redirects. For example, you have the page User:Storm05/Hurricane Lane (2000). It currently redirects to Hurricane Lane (2000). You can get rid of that redirect by putting {{subst:delete}} or {{delete}} into it and removing the redirect code. The page will then be deleted by an administrator. Of course you can keep the redirects if you like;) Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I found two pictures on this website and it credits the photos taken by the libary of congress so does that mean that use the {{PD-USGov-Congress tag? Storm05 17:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I would guess that the Library of Congress is merely where the image was found, and that the actual photographer is the copyright holder, because I don't think the Library of Congress creates very many works, it just collects them. On the other hand, maybe it is possible that the copyright has been given or sold to the Library of Congress. You should ask for advice at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. —Bkell (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

Storm05, if you are going to submit an article for assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment, please make sure you include reasons why or what has happened. Please try to avoid blank spaces. Thank you. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Florida public-domain tag

Hello, Storm05. I just discovered the {{PD-FLGov}} tag. Apparently everything created by the State of Florida is in the public domain (with a few noted exceptions), so Image:Kate-002.jpg is OK. Note that this is apparently unique to Florida, though, and does not necessarily apply to other states. I've changed the copyright tag on the image description page. Let me know if you have any questions. —Bkell (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft

Please be careful of what you add to this list. The last two items you added did not involve commercial aircraft and are other wise obscure and not note worthy. – Zntrip 20:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users who have left the project

Chacor's reversions of you on the Project talk page were valid. None of those users have left the project, NSLE didn't, Devon didn't... Indeed those on Wikibreak may end their wikibreak at any point and when they return and start contributing they will be listed as inactive. If you think it is necessary to have inactive users marked add a short phrase "left wikipedia", "on Wikibreak" etc.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those users has been banned from the project. Those users have been indef-blocked from Wikipedia, which is different from being banned from the project. O-TOWN was deliberately removed from the list as that was a troll account and Devon is banned for copyvios not relating to the WikiProject, in his case "Indefinitely blocked", would work.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plane crash AfD's

Whether or not the topics of the articles are notable is primarily what the AfD process is there to decide. However, AfD is not a vote and you shouldn't try to canvass support for your view.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 2006 Indiana Plane Crash

There is nothing to merge to Indiana University. That article is to do with the university not a minor event that killed <0.1% of its students.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, now that is a very bad idea for an article. The NTSB have records of over 2,000 fatal aviation incidents, of which most will involve light aircraft, and that is just in the USA.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical Storm Jelawat

You created an article on TS Jelawat, which I have merged back into the main article, as there is no additional information. The PTS is not the AHS - please only create articles for which there is sufficient info to warrant an article (Chanchu, Ewiniar or Bilis for example). Chacor 15:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits

I've noticed you have been tagging most of your edits as minor lately. You should only use a minor edit when making minor tweaks, such as spelling, correcting factual errors and vandal reverts.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIV

[edit] Re: I need conusel

What's the problem? I haven't been as active as I was in the past, so I don't really know what's going on in the Wicanepedia World. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I guess any personal attacks or unright accusations would be uncivil. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Storm05, if this is regarding my warning above, the line in particular is "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another". Please stop saying I've broken policy, as that meets the criteria above from WP:CIV. Chacor 16:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats depends on POV and I have no intention of accusing anyone at all. Storm05 16:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't depend on POV - once you make an accusation, it's cast in stone. You have clearly referred me, incorrectly so, to WP:NOT an experiment in rule-making countless times, indicating that I have violated the policy, when I haven't and it's actually known Wikipedia stuff I have been referring to. Chacor 16:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You told me that Wikipedia is not an attempt at rule-making, when I said that users only had two rights on Wikipedia, which is a Wiki essay (guideline?) and is observed by many Wikipedians. That seemed to suggest that you thought I was making it up, and thus violating policy. Also, similarly at the AFD. I'm willing to ignore all of this, though, if you will too. Also, I hope you've seen the notes I left you at your Kaemi article, they are very basic but should help give a good indication of whether it's worthy of an article. Cheers. Chacor 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the relevant page: Wikipedia:Free speech. I quote, "In short, Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right; there is no right to edit Wikipedia. As difficult as it is to accept, and as harsh as it sounds to say it, there are only two rights on Wikipedia: the right to fork and the right to leave." Chacor 17:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Comment

dont take it personally okay, but please stop comming on my talk page every time i make an edit because its annoying and disruptive (i was still adding links when you interrupted). Storm05 16:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Only administrators, the ArbCom, and Jimbo have the power to do that.. Also, again, WP:CIV (accusing me of breaking policy) - it's not disruptive. Chacor 03:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

I have my own reasons for the change in username, mostly Wikipedia politics-related. Chacor 17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Stan.jpg

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:100elsavlador.jpg

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Danny85tornado.JPG

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Danny85tornado2.JPG

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Gulfcoastpic5.jpg

[edit] Copyright violations on images

I've found 6 more copyvios and a further unclear image in one article today. Just to make it clear you can only tag an image with {{PD-USGov}} if it is a work of the federal government. If it is produced by a state then it is not public domain. If you are unsure ask someone.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually reading the disclaimer he was wrong there IMO. The information on the site is PD but not the images, the copyright is held by the VDOT.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyclone Heta

You moved the old version of this article from mainspace to your userspace just now. That causes serious problems under the terms of the GFDL as it destroys the page history. Please do not edit the userspace article until the move has been reverted. When you finish your article in your userspace list it on WP:RM to get an admin to move it over the redirect.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot or?

In the image's summary Image:N_va_manhunt_060821.300w.jpg it says: Screenshot of ... , but the license is {{promophoto}} - that doesn't match, which is it? feydey 13:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is tv screenshot then You are free to use it on the MSNBC or MSNBC News article. feydey 13:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this "what about use in other articles other than the MSNBC or MSNBC news articles" since if it is a tv screenshot You cannot change it's definition, so the current tag is perfect. Like You changed the license say to {{promophoto}} - that is incorrect if it is a tv screenshot. feydey 13:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read in {{tv screenshot}} how and where to use the screenshots. The license says: for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents, where "station ID" is MSNBC and "program and its contents" is MSNBC News, other use is not proper according to the license. So, to clarify, You cannot take an arbitrary screenshot and then use it in any article, because fair use restrictions apply. Questions? feydey 13:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if You don't use it, then place the image up for deletion ( {{Db-userreq}} ) and search for a suitable image for the article You are writing. feydey 13:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Similar fair use problems with the following images:

• Image:0410258258 jim hunter.jpg
• Image:4466618 BG1.jpg
• Image:1405869_200X150.jpg
• Image:Bloomingtonplanecrash-3.jpg
• Image:9265193.jpg
• Image:8883830 320X240.jpg

The first five listed are tagged as TV screenshots, which can only be used as described above with the problems with your image of Morva. The fifth is tagged as a publicity photograph, which it is not. Continued violations of Wikipedia's image/copyright policies may earn you a block. – Chacor 15:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. You may want to request their speedy deletion (I doubt it meets criteria though) or at WP:IFD. – Chacor 15:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Manhunt map.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Manhunt map.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.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 fair use images 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. BigDT 15:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Manhunt map.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:0410258258 jim hunter.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:0410258258 jim hunter.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.

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. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

Orphaned FU images are liable to deletion. However a fair use claim can only make sense when in reference to a specific article. You need to have the images in the relevant articles for FU review to actually determine anything, otherwise they fail on WP:FU#Policy criteria 7 - "The material must be used in at least one article". If you think those images are valid fair use in the articles you uploaded them for, instate them in those articles; and provide a fair use rationale on the image description page for use in that article.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #4

The September 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) 01:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your additions to WP:IFD#Glossary

Hi, I removed your additions to the IFD glossary as unneeded. WP:NOT censored, explicit imagery is not in itself ground for deletion. Porn images are deleted as a copyright violation, not because they are explicit. Attack images are speediable under WP:CSD#A8 and unsourced images under A4 (after a week). There is no need for those images to go through the IFD process so those abbreviations are pointless.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your recent contributions to Wikipedia are very much appreciated. However, please take a moment to look over your contributions for spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors before submitting them in final. This will help lessen the amount of copyediting work that fellow Wikipedians need to do, and will help improve the overall appearance of Wikipedia. This is not meant to be a disciplinary message, but merely a friendly request. Thank you!

[edit] Re: October 2004 Martinsville plane crash

This article is up on AFD, mainly because it doesn't mention who was on the plane when it crashed. Please add this information, as suggested last month on the talk page. --Coredesat talk! 18:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article assessments

Please stop changing article assessments without explanation - it can be seen as vandalism. If you'd like an article of yours assessed, please ask someone to assess it. --Coredesat talk! 19:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simply put

Simply put. There are a lot of things you need to consider, and acknowledge here.

1. On Wikipedia, false information is considered vandalism.
2. In the Western Pacific (2000 onwards), JMA trumps all. JTWC is wholly unofficial. Padgett uses JTWC info, so he is also unofficial. Without citing any JMA material the article becomes heavily one-sided and incorrect.
3. Please, I'd really encourage you to use a spell-checker.
4. Warnings are not incivil.
5. Some of your articles are good. Some of them are bad. You need to consider that a storm must have done something - broken records, made major impact, caused significant preparatory moves - to warrant an article. For example, your Nida article was based mostly around a very extended storm history, most of which is unneeded (we don't need to know that the storm was moving WNW at 7 mph when it formed. That's too much detail).

Please take all of this into consideration. You're not a bad editor, but if you continue to do this and ignore the fact, then unfortunately it's not going to work out. Good luck with future editing. – Chacor 14:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #5

The October 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, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Northeast Airlines Flight 946

Not a bad article. You should Wiki-link the names in the Trivia section. Double check your spelling; there's a lot of errors (like untill, triva). Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge notice

Your articles on Typhoon Emma, Typhoon Rose (1971), Typhoon Ora (1972), Typhoon Helen (1972), Typhoon Billie (1976), and Tropical Storm Kim (1983) are currently a Start-Class hurricane article, and are being proposed for a merge. If you wish to to keep the article, you should state your thoughts on the article's talk page, or consider expanding the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, yea, I proposed it earlier today after discussing it on IRC. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the right IRC? I was talking about it with Nilfanion and Coredesat. Regardless, I proposed it on Wikipedia afterwards, and those articles don't quite have enough info to stay, IMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I brought it up informally on the WPTC IRC, and then I officially put it on the WPTC merge page. Now that it has been proposed, it is up to you to convince us that those articles are worth keeping. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure if such archives exist, and second, the discussion there is not meant for anything. Only discussion on Wikipedia is what goes. IRC is informal and only for bringing up ideas. Actually going through the ideas belong on Wikipedia. The discussion for the mergers is on the merge page for WPTC. That's where all of it is. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shanshan

Honestly speaking, it may just be best to merge any new info into the article (since your storm history is pretty much an exact copy of the seasonal article). I am willing to personally go through your sandbox article to comb for information not already in the seasonal article. – Chacor 17:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it, most of the preps could be condensed into one paragraph. The impact can probably be done so too. – Chacor 17:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The TCR won't be ready for two years. The JTWC hasn't even done 2005's TCRs. – Chacor 17:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because Article X is as is doesn't mean Article Y can stand like Article X. What I meant is that there is quite a bit of redundant info that can be condensed to fit the seasonal article. – Chacor 17:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Gary Piddget" does not issue TCRs, and his information is still unofficial. You'll see what I mean by it's redundant. Currently in the process of adding some of your info the the seasonal article, then we'll see how. – Chacor 18:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

He's not an official source by any means. His estimates are as unofficial as ours, only we cite sources. Plus, his damage info comes from US. Meaning if we cited him we'd be citing ourselves, a blatant violation of WP:RS (reliable sources - wikis are not reliable). Have updated the seasonal article with minimal loss of info, see for yourself. – Chacor 18:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Look. I know you've worked hard on this article, and want it to be kept, and therefore you're trying to justify its existence. But some storms just don't need articles. In the WPac, 11 deaths is very, very little. With this little impact as well, this just doesn't deserve an article. Any additional info can be accomodated in the seasonal article. – Chacor 18:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself. The Western Pacific is not the Atlantic. Not every storm gets an article. Secondly, my talk page is not a merge discussion, so your "keep imo" isn't welcome. Thirdly, if there's still info, why rush? Get all the info in first before trying to get it to mainspace. There's no hurry. – Chacor 18:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not in the WPac. And go ask Hink. He'll agree. His belief doesn't extend elsewhere (he has a "I'd rather not, but I don't mind if you choose to" thought) outside the Atlantic. I'm sorry, but in the WPac, this storm really did relatively nothing. Shanshan doesn't need an article at this point, or at any point (unless damage totals somehow come in at something ridiculously high, or many, many new deaths are attributed to it). – Chacor 18:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Shanshan

The article's not bad, and I think it should be kept. I don't think that info would fit into the season article, seeing how long the season article would be. The storm history should probably be expanded. The impact section wanders a bit. If two ideas in one sentence are not related (like in Taiwan's section mentioning the wind gust and the rainfall total), separate them and see if there's any other info that are related (like splitting that sentence, and mention if the gust did damage, or if rainfall led to flooding or mudslides). All in all, though, pretty good. Sure, it's not that notable, but it's good the WPAC is getting some interest. There's no harm in having articles for low-impact storms. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It should be kept, but as I said on the article talkpage, must undergo cleanup and expansion to make it worthy of being a separate article. - SpLoT 04:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Storm05, you must keep trying to increase the quality of your articles, or they will be merged. Also, please try to create notable articles, or discuss on the relevant season talkpage. - SpLoT 04:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you had a few spelling mistakes or typos in some of your past edits, which detracts a bit from them - I'd suggest using something like the spell check in Google Toobar (downloadable at http://toolbar.google.com). Happy editing. —AySz88\^-^ 04:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

If possible, could you use a spell checker for your articles before you publish them? Maybe use Microsoft Word's spell checker to avoid simple spelling mistakes like "untill", which you commonly misspell. The correct spelling for that word is until, with only one L. Mainly, if the articles didn't have so many spelling and grammar errors, they would present themselves much better, and are not quite as likely to be merged so quickly. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You can also download Mozilla Firefox v2.0, which comes with a built-in spell checker. Titoxd^(?!?) 16:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you plan on making

I noticed that you and Cyclone 1 were briefly planning working separately on the same storm (Beryl 94). To avoid such problems, please post what articles you intend to publish in the near future here. Only put the ones you are currently working and will finish soon, or ones you will be starting and working on soon (meaning if you haven't worked on it for a while, don't list it). Thanks. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't list every last storm. Please only put 5 or 6 storms there that you plan on doing.Thanks. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season

I know it's in the TWO, but we pretty much agreed earlier in the season that we would only discuss invests and named storms, unless they happen to be on NHC's danger graphic without being an invest. Please don't start discussions on systems that aren't. --Coredesat 14:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Comment on my talk page

I'm not sure what that's referring to. The policy we currently have and have had in the past is that info is the main prerequesite for article making. How much info is enough is subjective, and quality has something to do with it as well. So, I really don't see a problem, given that we're trying to make a top class encyclopedia for tropical cyclones. In fact, our main goal is to get every tropical cyclone to featured status. While that initially might have seemed like a joke, that is very much what we are doing now. We would much rather have a good article than a bad article, and if the bad article is short and poorly-written, why keep it? Hurricanehink (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)