User talk:Mitchazenia/Archive6

User:Mitchazenia/Directing Buttons

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mitchazenia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Template:ToC1964PacificTyphoonSeason has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Coredesat talk! 17:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:clear}} instead of {{clear}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. – Chacor 13:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning.

Template:X9 is a template sandbox - that is, a sandbox to test templates (like you did with 03C). To test stuff that are NOT templates (like you've done many times in the past), please use the real sandbox, or use your own userspace. – Chacor 19:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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) 00:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know this is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:HurricaneCraze32/Hurricane Dolly (1996) in case you want to give your opinion. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 23:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"~H-U-R-R-I-C-A-N-E-C-R-A-Z-E-3-2-M-I-T-C-H-A-Z-E-N-I-A~" is far too annoying/disruptive, as it affects normal reading of text. Please change it? – Chacor 17:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Track-55W-1962.JPG, Image:Track-66W-1962.JPG, Image:Track-75W-1962.JPG all need sources for your data. I'd recommend removing them from the article and getting Nilfanion to do proper track maps. – Chacor 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wanda_Radar-1962.png is copyrighted by the Hong Kong Observatory. By uploading it as public domain from the US Government, you are liable for a block. – Chacor 17:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

...Sigh. Alright, you can't copy and paste information. I'm sorry, I seriously doubt that you wrote that storm history. It's too long either way. Storm histories should be, ideally, 2 to 3 paragraphs, and should only pertain to the storm's history. Any impact on land, or preparations, should be in their own section. The storm's name is not One, so you can't keep calling it One throughout the article. Rewrite the whole storm history and put it in your own words. Preparations should be its own section, and be sure to include location areas, not just types or specific cities. The whole aftermath should be intergrated into the impact section, but it needs to be rewritten to flow better. The naming section is useless and should be removed. The intro should be fleshed out and mainly be a summary of the important info. Stats like the storm being the last storm to affect NC since Diana two years later are unimportant, and don't even really belong in the article. All in all, I'd rate it a very start class if you published it now, but if you did some major work to it the article could stand to be published. Hurricanehink (talk)

There's still a lot to do. You basically removed the entire storm history prior to the storm actually forming! I didn't say you should remove the technical info, just rewrite it. You still cannot call the storm One. In any storm article, unless it received a name (Able through Love, a female name, or a male name), you will have to call it by its official name, and in this case it has none. The entire aftermath section is not aftermath, it is impact. You should work all that info into the impact, but don't copy and paste. Work it in, rewrite it. As you can see now, there might not be enough info to publish it as it is, so keep digging and working on better writing. Hurricanehink (talk)

It's getting there. The storm history should be trimmed a bit (you're probably really angry about that, sorry, but there's a happy medium there; try aiming for three paragraphs). The whole thing needs sources. State sections in the impact section should not have sub-sections; the Florida section should have the three paragraphs of info, not the sub-sections. You say it caused possible tornadoes. Well, you're in luck. According to this site, the storm spawned 12 tornadoes, one of which was a strong tornado (F2 to F5) and one of which killed one person. Don't copy and paste what I said, but read the link and see if there's any other info on the tornadoes. Since I'm in a good right now, I'll help you a bit. Using that previous link with NCDC's list of tornadoes since 1950, the storm spawned an F2 tornado in Hendry County, Florida. It killed one person, injured one, and caused $250,000 in damage (1982 USD). Though the event report; link this by the way; doesn't say it was due to the storm, that tornado was the only tornado in June of 1982 in Florida that killed a person. It's not that much more info, but it's a little bit that's good info. See if there's any more info on the tornado outbreak in Florida. Hurricanehink (talk)

OK. It looks like it has a good base. Now, you should go through the entire thing and give it a really thorough copyedit. Move things around. Anything that doesn't belong in the section should be elsewhere or removed. Try and combine sentences and paragraphs when it works. Hurricanehink (talk)

Remember, only keep storm history in the storm history. The 1974 storm should be elsewhere (maybe not even in the article). The storm history needs to be rewritten completely. Keep it exactly in order of what happened. The first two and last two jump around with separate timelines. I'll say it again, you can't called unnamed storms by their number. Delete all of the "One" references. What does this mean? "On June 17, the center had winds as high as a Category 4 hurricane" Fix the typos, and continue to copyedit. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The storm history is still a bit unclear about the formation of the disturbance. Don't be afraid to include information, as long as it's written so a non-technical person can read it. Again, the whole thing needs sources, preferably cite web formatting. The Atlantic Ocean section could potentially be re-written and put in the preparations section, as it isn't really impact. Fix the spelling errors, keep similar events together in the impact, and give it a nice copyedit. With some more work, it could potentially stand as an article. Hurricanehink (talk)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wanda_Radar-1962.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

...Sigh. Alright, you can't copy and paste information. I'm sorry, I seriously doubt that you wrote that storm history. It's too long either way. Storm histories should be, ideally, 2 to 3 paragraphs, and should only pertain to the storm's history. Any impact on land, or preparations, should be in their own section. The storm's name is not One, so you can't keep calling it One throughout the article. Rewrite the whole storm history and put it in your own words. Preparations should be its own section, and be sure to include location areas, not just types or specific cities. The whole aftermath should be intergrated into the impact section, but it needs to be rewritten to flow better. The naming section is useless and should be removed. The intro should be fleshed out and mainly be a summary of the important info. Stats like the storm being the last storm to affect NC since Diana two years later are unimportant, and don't even really belong in the article. All in all, I'd rate it a very start class if you published it now, but if you did some major work to it the article could stand to be published. Hurricanehink (talk)

There's still a lot to do. You basically removed the entire storm history prior to the storm actually forming! I didn't say you should remove the technical info, just rewrite it. You still cannot call the storm One. In any storm article, unless it received a name (Able through Love, a female name, or a male name), you will have to call it by its official name, and in this case it has none. The entire aftermath section is not aftermath, it is impact. You should work all that info into the impact, but don't copy and paste. Work it in, rewrite it. As you can see now, there might not be enough info to publish it as it is, so keep digging and working on better writing. Hurricanehink (talk)

It's getting there. The storm history should be trimmed a bit (you're probably really angry about that, sorry, but there's a happy medium there; try aiming for three paragraphs). The whole thing needs sources. State sections in the impact section should not have sub-sections; the Florida section should have the three paragraphs of info, not the sub-sections. You say it caused possible tornadoes. Well, you're in luck. According to this site, the storm spawned 12 tornadoes, one of which was a strong tornado (F2 to F5) and one of which killed one person. Don't copy and paste what I said, but read the link and see if there's any other info on the tornadoes. Since I'm in a good right now, I'll help you a bit. Using that previous link with NCDC's list of tornadoes since 1950, the storm spawned an F2 tornado in Hendry County, Florida. It killed one person, injured one, and caused $250,000 in damage (1982 USD). Though the event report; link this by the way; doesn't say it was due to the storm, that tornado was the only tornado in June of 1982 in Florida that killed a person. It's not that much more info, but it's a little bit that's good info. See if there's any more info on the tornado outbreak in Florida. Hurricanehink (talk)

OK. It looks like it has a good base. Now, you should go through the entire thing and give it a really thorough copyedit. Move things around. Anything that doesn't belong in the section should be elsewhere or removed. Try and combine sentences and paragraphs when it works. Hurricanehink (talk)

Remember, only keep storm history in the storm history. The 1974 storm should be elsewhere (maybe not even in the article). The storm history needs to be rewritten completely. Keep it exactly in order of what happened. The first two and last two jump around with separate timelines. I'll say it again, you can't called unnamed storms by their number. Delete all of the "One" references. What does this mean? "On June 17, the center had winds as high as a Category 4 hurricane" Fix the typos, and continue to copyedit. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The storm history is still a bit unclear about the formation of the disturbance. Don't be afraid to include information, as long as it's written so a non-technical person can read it. Again, the whole thing needs sources, preferably cite web formatting. The Atlantic Ocean section could potentially be re-written and put in the preparations section, as it isn't really impact. Fix the spelling errors, keep similar events together in the impact, and give it a nice copyedit. With some more work, it could potentially stand as an article. Hurricanehink (talk)

Yea, it looks good enough. Go ahead and publish it. :) Good work. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Track-55W-1962.JPG, Image:Track-66W-1962.JPG, Image:Track-75W-1962.JPG all need sources for your data. I'd recommend removing them from the article and getting Nilfanion to do proper track maps. – Chacor 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wanda_Radar-1962.png is copyrighted by the Hong Kong Observatory. By uploading it as public domain from the US Government, you are liable for a block. – Chacor 17:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Subtropical Storm One (1982) Rainfall has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I would, but I'm very busy with a project of my own. I'm trying to get all articles in the 2003 AHS to GA or above. I've already finished all but three of them (Bill, Isabel, and Juan). I would help after I'm finished, but I don't like the WPAC much; not enough info, and never any impact pics. There might be 20 storms that have usable pictures for WPAC storms since 1950, and that's an optimistic guess. Most WPAC storm articles will not have impact pics. Sat pics, on the other hand... I don't know where they would be find (really old and WPAC = unlikely). Hurricanehink (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, why did you leave the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject if you're still basically a part of it? By that, I mean you posted on the WPTC talk page, and talked about some article requests. Given your involvement, how come you left? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, but point of being part of the project is to organize the members. The criticism is constructive to let you know what you need to do. It wasn't to make fun of you or to put you down. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember, the seasonal activity is meant to be a brief summary of the season, not a summary for each storm. The Arthur section in the seasonal activity is only about a line shorter than its own section. If you're going to add info like that, consider trying to find new info to put in the sections, rather than duplicating info at the top. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PEI Route 14 Shield.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.

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Caroline (1975).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.

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Frances-1976-2.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.

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Arthur-June 19,1996.gif, 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) 20:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the green tag on your sig isn't working. It'll work if you omit the quotation marks around "green". See below. --Coredesat 22:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, you need to use the actual < and > signs, not their HTML equivalents. --Coredesat 00:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That sig is annoying. Do you want it to be green, or is it intentional? If it is, it's disruptive. – Chacor 23:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Trying to figure it out sorry.<font color=green>Mitchazenia V4.0</font> 23:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[[User:Mitchazenia|<font color="green">Mitchazenia V4.0</font>]] gives Mitchazenia V4.0

– Chacor 00:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically, don't use HTML equivalents, use the actual symbols. – Chacor 00:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you get the whole article thing. The main reason we make articles is because they have information. Your Marco article is very short compared to what it should be. None of it is sourced as well. I'm sorry, but you need to learn our standards for making new articles. The WPTC is a high-quality encyclopedia for tropical cyclones, and we're trying to make the project as whole to keep getting better. I'll ask you, what is the benifit of publishing your article on Marco? Does it have a significant amount of information outside of the storm history? Is it of good quality? Does it have sources within the article? That is the WPTC's main criteria for creating new articles. If a new article is unsourced and short, it is very likely to get merged. You need to do some serious research, not just a 5 minute google search and use NHC links. I've told you before, I'll say it again. Why don't you work more on improving existing articles? Getting a short start class article to a longer length is much more important than making a new, short, and poorly-organized article. You did an pretty good job with Iris; it now has more info than before. However, you didn't go far enough. I'll be blunt. The WPTC doesn't want new unsourced and short articles. About Marco, if you truly want to publish it, you should look everywhere. By the time you publish it, we would like it to be at B class. The problem with most articles is that after they get published, they sit and no one does anything major with them. If you put the time and effort into it before you publish it, everyone will be much better off; your article won't get merged, and it could possibly get to GA or FA class eventually if it is truly comprehensive. If you want Marco to be that sort of article, make the article comprehensive. I did a quick search on google, and within 5 minutes found enough info to double the impact section and add more to preps and SH. You need to work more on your spelling and grammar as well. The second sentence, "Marco wandered around for ten days in the Carribean Sea", seems to informal, and it sets the tone for the whole article. False info in the intro is bad. I count two, maybe three loops in the storm path, but just one was a cyclonic loop. The storm history jumps a lot (first sentence mentions a cold front, then the next mentions the wave). One of the biggest rules we have is to keep the right information in the right place; mentioning that the storm produced gale force winds over Florida is not important. Just to let you know, it usually takes me a total of five hours to create a new article, including time for researching info. It will probably take you about as long, if not longer to make an article. If you were to publish it now, I'd propose a merge. Either you should give up on it, or spend a good amount of time researching it. Hurricanehink (talk)

Use the pictures icon in the top left (between select and the magnifying button). Highlight the picture or text you want to save. After that, you should get a message saying "The selected area has been copied to the clipboard". Then, paste it into "Paint" (in accessories if you have a PC), then save it. Be sure to put .jpg at the end of it. After that, upload it the normal way. Be sure to give credit to whomever took the picture or who did it. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Also, please don't ignore what I said before. You never gave a response to what I said. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

AP, as in associated press? You can't you them. AP images are copyrighted. Could you give some sort of a response to my assessment on Marco et. al? It seems you ignored it, then archived it. This is what I am referring to.

I don't think you get the whole article thing. The main reason we make articles is because they have information. Your Marco article is very short compared to what it should be. None of it is sourced as well. I'm sorry, but you need to learn our standards for making new articles. The WPTC is a high-quality encyclopedia for tropical cyclones, and we're trying to make the project as whole to keep getting better. I'll ask you, what is the benifit of publishing your article on Marco? Does it have a significant amount of information outside of the storm history? Is it of good quality? Does it have sources within the article? That is the WPTC's main criteria for creating new articles. If a new article is unsourced and short, it is very likely to get merged. You need to do some serious research, not just a 5 minute google search and use NHC links. I've told you before, I'll say it again. Why don't you work more on improving existing articles? Getting a short start class article to a longer length is much more important than making a new, short, and poorly-organized article. You did an pretty good job with Iris; it now has more info than before. However, you didn't go far enough. I'll be blunt. The WPTC doesn't want new unsourced and short articles. About Marco, if you truly want to publish it, you should look everywhere. By the time you publish it, we would like it to be at B class. The problem with most articles is that after they get published, they sit and no one does anything major with them. If you put the time and effort into it before you publish it, everyone will be much better off; your article won't get merged, and it could possibly get to GA or FA class eventually if it is truly comprehensive. If you want Marco to be that sort of article, make the article comprehensive. I did a quick search on google, and within 5 minutes found enough info to double the impact section and add more to preps and SH. You need to work more on your spelling and grammar as well. The second sentence, "Marco wandered around for ten days in the Carribean Sea", seems to informal, and it sets the tone for the whole article. False info in the intro is bad. I count two, maybe three loops in the storm path, but just one was a cyclonic loop. The storm history jumps a lot (first sentence mentions a cold front, then the next mentions the wave). One of the biggest rules we have is to keep the right information in the right place; mentioning that the storm produced gale force winds over Florida is not important. Just to let you know, it usually takes me a total of five hours to create a new article, including time for researching info. It will probably take you about as long, if not longer to make an article. If you were to publish it now, I'd propose a merge. Either you should give up on it, or spend a good amount of time researching it. Hurricanehink (talk)

Do you have any thoughts on that? As for the images, you can only use them if they are public domain and it says it was taken by a US government employee. Otherwise, you probably can't use them. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

When you add damage totals, be sure to put them in 2006 USD, not 2005. We're nearing the end of 2006, so 2005 should be out. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried looking? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You should use this one. I used it, so we should try and keep uniformity. JTWC is neither. It is the military - specifically the Navy. However, please ask Nilfanion to use the generated maps. The project uses those maps. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

He's fine with it. He says it's his job. It's better than having JTWC track maps which are completely different. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, one for the season as a whole? You should've said so. He could probably make one, but you should ask him first rather than bugging me ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you ask him? I think the generated map would look much better than that black and white map. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Please increase the limit on your talk page archive code. One day is not long enough, and new messages will sometimes be archived immediately, which is bad if they're important.
2. Please remove the link to Bob Barker from your sig, as it makes it too long. Also, please read the sig guidelines to see what does or does not belong in your sig. Failure to heed this warning will result in your sig being refactored on sight, and I really don't want to have to do that.
3. Please don't add 2006 USD damage values to 2005 storms. They're not needed as there is not a significant difference in the values, and consensus is to leave the figures alone for storms since 2004. --Coredesat

Thanks, although linking to Hurricane Mitch in your sig is still at least somewhat inappropriate, given the damage and fatalities it caused. You can change "Mitch" to link to your user page, and "azenia" to link to your user talk page. --Coredesat

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) 00:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, please note that the link you provide says "© 2001 FIU High Performance Database Research Center". It does not matter if the site's header says "NASA Center" or whatnot. This work is copyrighted. Please do not upload copyrighted material to Wikipedia. – Chacor 14:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! :D Hurricanehink (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't list that many articles you plan on doing. Please only list the ones you are working on or plan to in the near future, and only list a maximum of 6. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Lorenzo is very short. If you were to publish it, I would recommend it for a merge right away. The writing is poor, there is little content, and there's hardly any research on the subject. Use the TWO's, discussions, and find some more info on it. Trust me, there is more info on the storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If I were to do an article for Lorenzo, I would redo it completely and do it on my own. If you're no longer interested in Lorenzo's article, you should state it. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, could you please stop linking to nonexistent things in your signature? At best it should only link to things related to you (ideally, your user page and your user talk page). It violates WP:SIG again. --Coredesat 03:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, wait - one thing you could do is make "7000+ edits" link to your contributions, and add <small></small> to it. It could look something like Mitchazenia (7000+ edits!). It looks a lot cleaner that way. --Coredesat 03:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)