User talk:Storm05

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archives: 2005 Tropical Discussions of Storm05. January-February 2006 Tropical Dicussions of Storm05 April 2006 Tropical Dicussions of Storm05 May 2006 Tropical Discussions of Storm05 June-October 2006 Tropical Discussions of Storm05


Contents

[edit] Assessments again

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

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

[edit] YouTube videos of TWC

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

[1] Second warning about linking to copyright infringing videos. – Chacor 06:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, in case you are, please don't think that I'm specifically targetting you, because I'm not. Wikipedia is cracking down on copyrights (as you may already know from your many image warnings), so we can't afford to let this happen. Cheers, – Chacor 14:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Fabian

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

[edit] Re: AOI's

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

[edit] Image:E1971cty.JPG listed for deletion

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

[edit] Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #6

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

[edit] Re: Angry weatherman

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

[edit] Re: Wow

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

Well, yea, the extratropical storm has become a bit better organized. Look at the satellite: the convection is very far from the center of circulation. Look at the visible: the circulation is wrapping up a lot of cold, dry air. Look at the water temperatures: the storm is over 60 degree waters. This thing has a snowball's chance in hell to develop. The thing to its east (I assume you're talking about the thing between the Lesser Antilles and the Azores) looks a little better and has a slightly better chance to develop into a tropical cyclone, but it still seems unlikely. Transformation from an extratropical storm to a tropical storm is fairly rare. Right now, the thing that has the best shot for development is the area of convection north of Panama. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they are the exceptions, not the rule. They all developed convection near their centers as a developing extratropical cyclone. This storm is already a well-developed cyclone without much convection. There's a great difference. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Regarding the Typhoon Wanda (1962) article

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

Now i am confused. First of all-no damage was reported for Hainan Island as it made landfall as a weak depression possibly weaker than that or the HKO would've mentioned it. I only added it because it needed at least one sentence there. Second, hink, please don't ridicule me. Third, i have no access to the newer reports. Can someone give it to me?Mitchazenia(7300+edits) 16:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Though I am a little busy at the moment.Mitchazenia(7400+edits) 19:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bad News

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

[edit] Images

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

Thanks for understanding. I hope you know what I mean, because names like "Wea<bunch of numbers>" are not easy to remember or use. It's always better to use a descriptive name. Thanks. – Chacor 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, while I'm here, I might as well also say, where possible, please upload the maximum-resolution version of the images (the largest sized ones). It's better than a small, low-res thumbnail. – Chacor 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Just in case you needed an example of that, for Image:Wea00417.jpg, the image you uploaded is the image from the source page. However, note that the source page says a high-resolution image is available. It's preferable to upload that one - the bigger one - rather than a thumb. – Chacor 17:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax tag on Christian Forums

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

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

[edit] York Rainbow Peace Camp

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


[edit] List of rail accidents

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

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

[edit] Don't bother

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

Nope, that's not how we work. The storm is what's notable, not the typhoon - the article is a mess - so clean it up. The typhoon itself did nothing, the storm was totally separate. – Chacor 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Extratropical storm ≠ typhoon. A typhoon is tropical. Extratropical systems that do damage have their own articles - nor'easters are a great example of that. Ask Hink, he'll confirm. Freda doesn't need an article, if you have any additional information add it to the existing one. There is no way the Columbus Day article will be merged "into" a Freda one. – Chacor 15:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

What about Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003)? Storm05 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
There are some exceptions to the rule, and the extratropical remnant of Nicholas caused so little effects that it is very unlikely it would get an article on its own. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I was unaware of this discussion until today, busily creating and improving the extratropical storm articles. Take a look at the way I revised/cleaned up the Columbus Day Storm of 1962 article last night and this morning and see if this satisfies all involved. Thegreatdr 20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That's much better. That's more how I envisioned such an article. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello; NHC handling of short-lived systems

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

[edit] Assessments

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

[edit] Blocked for 6 hours

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

[edit] Your link

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

[edit] Re: Unfair block

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

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

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

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

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


Storm05, as far as I can tell, you were blocked not for choosing the wrong assessment or categorization. You were blocked for repeatedly setting or changing assessments against community consensus, and despite repeated warnings. Remember that while you may be an expert on tropical storms, Wikipedia works by achieving consensus among editors.
A six-hour block is a very short one; blocks against vandals (which you are not!), for example, are usually no less than 24 hours. The admin who blocked you realizes that you were acting in good faith and are genuinely trying to improve those articles. The purpose of the block was not to punish you, but to allow editors some time to figure out the situation, and prompt you to discuss these assessments first with the other editors before rushing to set/change them. Don't be discouraged by this short block; instead, use this as an opportunity to start a discussion among the editors about the reasons behind your assessments. Remember, you can get much more done by building consensus than you will by fighting it. The Wiki system is not always the most efficient one, but it's the only one that can work with such a vast number of volunteer editors.
And a note to User:Chacor: Any editor with a legitimate concern is welcome to seek my help on my Talk page. When in doubt, please let me decide what stays on my Talk page. Owen× ☎ 22:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Dora (1999)

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

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bob91newspap.JPG)

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

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

[edit] Re: Need major help

Sorry, but I have quite a few of my own projects that I am working on. The best way to finish a long project is to focus on one individual part of the project that is interesting. Then, go to a related part that's just as interesting. Before long, it'll get done. You'd probably have more time and patience for it if that was the only article you were working on. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

All of us are working on our own projects. Sorry to say it like this, but if you want something you'll have to do yourself 9 times out of 10. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #8

The January 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) 23:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 AHS map

There's two versions of Image:2006 Atlantic hurricane season map.png, one local copy on en-wikipedia (which is outdated, and up for deletion) and one on commons (which is correct, and of a larger resolution compared to the .gif file). When the local copy is deleted, the correct map will display. Hope that clears up any questions. – Chacor 14:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:6304575084.01._AA280_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:6304575084.01._AA280_SCLZZZZZZZ_.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. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, 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.

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. Coredesat 06:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:6304462921.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:6304462921.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.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. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, 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.

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. Coredesat 06:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, would you repeat that again. By looking at your comments above, i have no idea what youre trying to explain to me. Storm05 13:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Each fair use media uploaded has to have significant rationale explaining why you think the image meets our criteria for fair use, so that admins can keep track of the image and see if it's being used incorrectly. Note that the images could be deleted, so I'd advise you to read more extensively into rationales for FU media before uploading any more fair use images. As an aside, fair use images shouldn't be used in galleries. – Chacor 13:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that your Fairuse rationales are very weak, and generally such rationales aren't enough. You'll note that the template warning says that you need a specific rationale for its inclusion on Wikipedia; it has to be detailled. As an aside, could I again ask you to please upload images under clearer names? – Chacor 14:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How specific?, what more is needed to justify the rationale? Storm05 14:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert at images, unfortunately. You'll be better off asking Nilfanion for help with FU rationales. – Chacor 14:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I screwed up here - I should have tagged them improper rationale and not no rationale. However, the images should still not be there. Only one image is needed for the article (Image:1275 xl.jpg) - fair use images cannot be used in galleries of any size on articles (see WP:FU for more info). --Coredesat 22:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inline citations

Oh, another reminder, while I'm here. When working on your articles, could your inline citations please go at the right places? For example, Cyclone Heta used to have citations all at the end of paragraphs. They should come immediately after the fact they are being cited for. – Chacor 14:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Cindy (l963)

You should ask an admin to move it to the correct title at Hurricane Cindy (1963). Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked Nilfanion for you. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:Storm05/Hurricane Dora (1999)

I've performed a bit of trickery on the article in main space and your subpage. See my comment on my talk page for more info. As it currently stands I think it needs more work before it can stand as an article, what I have done removes the need for future admin assistance.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:CNUfire.JPG)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #9

The February 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) 18:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MichealAddisonmugst.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:MichealAddisonmugst.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. MECU≈talk 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This image has been deleted, as it is clearly replaceable. A free image could be manipulated to remove the context, if a bare background image is important.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
We cant manipulate police mugshots becuase that would be copyright violation and all images of Micheal Addison are from the press or police department and thus no free image exists. Storm05 12:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
What i meant that an internet search has foundzeroanything in the way of free images of micheal addison or officerMicheal Briggs. Also a search though picsearch[2] and flickr turns up nothing i doubt any free pics will come out of this because the outside media appears to be loosing interest and since the majortiy of the images are from press agencies or the police department and the restrictions of people of taking photographs during the trial or just the fact that possbily no body will take any pictures of micheal addison at all. And since Micheal Briggs is desceased i think its valid that the pic should stay. The only free pics i can find are from the memorial service. And btw a search through wikimedia commons turns up nothing.Storm05 17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:6304462921.01. SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:6304462921.01. SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:6304575084.01. AA280 SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:6304575084.01. AA280 SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marilyn damage images

The images Image:Damageapts0995.JPG and Image:Stomas91695.JPG have incorrect licensing information because they weren't originally taken by NOAA or NOAA employees - they were provided to NOAA by the photographers in question. Since NOAA attributes the photographers ("courtesy of (photographer)"), they're not public domain. They're also not press photos, so we can't apply fair use to them, so they'll probably end up on IFD soon. Next time double-check to make sure the images are truly free (as in, NOAA doesn't credit someone else) before uploading them, or else they may also be deleted. --Coredesat 22:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect there lots of NOAA photos that have that courtesey and are in public domain.Storm05 12:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Stomas91695.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Stomas91695.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Coredesat 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ofc_Briggs.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ofc_Briggs.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Nilfanion (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for copyright issues

You've been temporarily blocked because of copyright issues. Please refer to Suggesting indef block on User:Storm05 for continued image violations. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, I've been watching this on my watchlist for the past few minutes, and this sounds Familiar. I'm not sure if this is true, though. Anyway, since I'm not involved in this, back to editing. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 18:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the rapid image uploading and everythting else, maybe my emotions got the better of me but is there a reason to take to the Admin notice board when you can replied to my responses on my talk page, the assumption that im a bad editor or a vandal (which im not!) in every sense of the word is shocking because im not a bad editor just a person who makes a lot of edits and makes some (or more) mistakes along the way without realizing it first and forgetting it if i did. Storm05 18:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I mean was going to resolve the disputes when i came back from class but untill i saw the block i gave up. Storm05 17:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyclone Favio sandbox

Hey Storm05, I thought that I would point out the article on 2007 Mozambican flood. Cyclone Favio has no information on preparations (as you can see from the seasonal article), and any impact or aftermath would be closely related to the floods. Might I suggest that you add any information you have about Favio's aftermath to the floods article (where it needs more info), instead of creating an article for Favio which would be a WPTC stub? – Chacor 02:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I second this idea - the flood article needs more information, and all Favio is likely to have is storm history and a small amount of impact (too small to really justify a stubby article). --Coredesat 02:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I oppose the idea, because the article only mentions Favio (and adding more will be too much resulting an article being created anyway and the Mozambician aritcle will just be a sub article of the impact section of the Favio) and favio's aftemat also includes wind and storm surge damage and was an occuring event before Favio and is an event that happens to have Favio and Favio also impacted Madagascar.Storm05 12:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

See the Cyclone Leon-Elinearticle for example. Storm05 12:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, but can I then suggest that you ask someone to copyedit it before you move to the main-space? That way as soon as it hits mainspace it's presentable and close to (or even at) B-class, rather than showing visitors work which could be improved greatly. Granted, we already have many articles that could be improved greatly, but we have in the past had to clean up a lot of your work, so I'd just like to put out the suggestion that you might want to contact Hink, Nilf, Tito, Core or myself to copy-edit it before you put it out to mainspace. Or even better, why not do like Mitchazenia is doing, and ask someone in real-life to help you check it for mistakes? That would work too. Oh, and, just curious, if you don't mind saying, how old are you? Cheers, – Chacor 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for backing Hink and I up at Fabian's talk page, by the way. – Chacor 14:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bertha

You weren't working on it.... ever. However, I must ask you, why did you start working on a Bertha article after you found out that I was working on one? Hurricanehink (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, please do not violate the GFDL by copying and pasting the storm history in my sandbox into yours. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Ill try to write the storm histoy in my own words next time. Storm05 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
But the thing is, you already saw that I wrote it, and it is still a violation of the GFDL. In the future, if you see someone else working on an article, it might be a good idea if you don't do the article. You said you were planning on doing Bertha since October, but you did nothing for it other than finding two external links. Please show more curtosy in the future. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:1405869_200X150.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:1405869_200X150.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Rebelguys2 talk 04:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical Storm Keith (1988)

You have that listed as one of your sandboxes, but the request page says you don't plan on working on it. Given that, I am just letting you know I am now working on it. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical Storm Hermine (1998)

How come you're doing it again? You should've seen that Jake52 was planning on the article. You have dozens of articles you are planning on or under construction. Why couldn't you just let him do Hermine? That was just one of three articles he was planning, and he started it, as well. You did the same thing with Hurricane Bertha (1990). Is it just carelessness in not paying attention what others are doing, or do you just want to get the credit for the article? If it's the former, I can understand, and you should pay more attention to the page, which was created for that very purpose. If it's the latter, see WP:OWN and WP:DICK. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you PLEASE work on just ONE article at a time. And not whenever you finish one you add another to your to-do list. Your additions just mean more and more low-quality articles we have to improve, and it detracts from more important things like improving our core article. Please, just list one or two articles, and when they're done, work on improving them, and not start new ones. – Chacor 13:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but after seeing hink churn one article out after another at a rapid rate i could not hold back the resitance, i'll try to improve them. Now back to editing. Storm05 13:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but [no offence meant] Hink can write well. That's why he can do that. But you often make grammar and spelling errors [although, granted, not necessarily intentionally]. But that means you need to spend more time after you've published the article to clean it up and improve it. Can you see where I'm coming from? It's not impossible to churn out good articles. But they have to be exactly that - good. Thanks for understanding, and I hope you'll try to improve the two articles you've just finished. – Chacor 13:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, I only work on, at most, two articles at a time in sandbox. I keep them in sandbox until I feel they are of good quality, both SPAG-wise and content wise. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/o/User_talk%7EStorm05_111e.html"