More Info on Nickelback photograph - - nickleback photograph -

You send me all of those great pages of hurricane images with histerical tag lines, but I had nothing to give back.

A user on a weather message board sent me a link for satellite images, round the clock, since 1983!!!! That's right. Diana? Right here. Klaus? Here!. How about Lili from 1984? You got it!.

The link to the homepage is: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/rsad/gibbs/gibbs.html This has WPAC, EPAC, and Atlantic, and has almost infinite potential.

Thank you! I couldn't well do it myself, as there was no consensus than. I have the same bad feeling about the user. He (she/it) will probably revert every time we redirect it, and make more pointless articles. The only good part is the fact he is technically using proper format (infobox, layout, everything but categories and atrocious writing). Hopefully the user will get the picture and take his time elsewhere. Hurricanehink 00:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to stop in and offer my sincere thanks for your support of my recently passed RfA. Your comments were incredibly kind, and I can only hope you continue to think well of me now that I'm able to do more to help out the wiki! --InShaneee 04:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You and adminship

Ok, let's face it. You suck. Or is that blow, since you're addicted to hurricanes? Just kidding :) Anyways, I got curious about you and adminship after a comment you made on the RfA talk page. I know you've had a prior RfA, and reviewed that vs. your overall contributions. Virtually all of the oppose/neutral comments on your failed RfA had to do with a lack of participation in the Wikipedia and WP Talk namespaces. Looking at your overall contributions, your participation in that area is now 6% of your total edits (173 edits of 2898 total). I think the critics on this point would be satisfied now. Also, you have 52 edits to AfD pages and 64 reverts. However, some people may raise concerns about your use of edit summaries. Over the last 500 edits, it's just 43%. Ouch. In the main namespace, it's 61% overall. Still a bit low. It's been just over two months since your last RfA. I think if you wait another month, improve your use of edit summaries and continue to increase participation in WP/WP Talk and AfD and increase your vandal fighting a bit your RfA would sail through. --Durin 16:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My Request for Adminship

Thanks for the help

I want to thank you for helping me stop Quadell's power grab. That son of a bitch belongs in jail, not as a bureaucrat! Crimes against nature should always immediately disqualify all nominees for Bureaucratiship.

Rfa thanks

Question

Good point, and that list will be really helpful. Hurricanehink 03:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Merging

Merging doesn't just mean deleting. In the case of Tropical Storm Odette (2003), it means merging all of the useful information back into the season article. For older storms the storm history should be merged too, since it takes lots of research to write those things, but for new storms the TCR is plenty. Jdorje 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you

Francs2000's Bureaucratship

Thanks for your support on my request for bureaucratship.

The final outcome was (70/5/0), so I am now a bureaucrat. I seriously didn't expect so many good comments from everybody and I appreciated the constructive criticism from those that gave it. If you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as a bureaucrat then please leave me a note. -- Francs2000

I don't believe it!

you like Coldplay, Evanesance, and Green Day too?!

That is so amazing! Say, do you like a certain Green Day member? I like Billie Joe Armstrong.

I apologize for bursting in here.....but hi! I hope you'll visit my page! I will be able to reply shortly. so go ahead and leave a message! see ya! Chef Clover 00:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

oh my word

(sigh) you have to know 3 things:

Green Day has 3 main members: Billie Joe Armstrong-songwriter, lead vocals, and lead guitar; Mike Dirnt-bass, back-up vocals, and is second choice for me; and Tré Cool-the drummer.

Coldplay-do you like their song, "Speed of Sound" (the video, too?)

Backstreet Boys-They are awesome! I love them! And they're ba-ack! Their album, Never Gone, was released June 14th of 2005. Consisting of AJ McLean (28), Nick Carter (25), Kevin Richardson (34), Brian Littrell (30), and Howie Dorough (32), they melt the hearts of fans everywhere in every country.

Anyways, what's up? You going to a concert soon? What's going on with the Euro?

Keep in touch! Chef Clover 21:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You're still kidding!

This is crazy! I like jazz! I mean, come on! My favorite song is by Duke Ellington, "Take the A-Train." (Is that how you spell it?) It's really mellow and calming. But why hate pop/rock/R&B? It's not as depressing as punk and Goth. It also sometimes matches my mood. However, Simple Plan is awesome. It's like they are transforming my emotions into hit songs, like "Perfect", "Addicted", and "Welcome to My Life." However, I seem to be addicted to Linkin Park's "Numb." It matches my personality: Moaning about the fact that everyone here (where I am) is picking on me, yet still feeling a little happy. But I love "Holiday", and "Boulevard of Broken Dreams", which also makes me feel better. In fact, other than the Backstreet Boys, Green Day is my inspiration to create or join up with a band. But Nickelback's "Photograph" sounds like hearing 7 of my 10 crushes say that they love me and want to date me.

However, being a Wikipedian administrator sounds like fun as well. I hope I get nominated!

Say, are you a WikiGnome or a Wikifairy?

See you later! Chef Clover 03:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute

Wikipedia's having a problem. Check the Village Pump under Technical.

whoa! dude! Listen. first of all, the BSB aren't fake. they contribute to their albums too. Second, 2 Boys came from Florida, 2 came from Kentucky, and one was born in New York but moved to Florida. So don't say that they over-enunciate! It's their accent (maybe) like my accent changes how i talk. (Yes, my state has its own accent.) Third, most of the BSB's music is not sappy. It's about love. It's either they are married and still looking for a girl, or they had a divorce their wives. But still, have you actually listened to their new songs yet? They became a tiny bit sappy but they're still awesome! Fourth, punk is sort of depressing. In fact, Goth expert and musician Voltaire on voltaire.net said in a Big Story News thingy that punk basically says "I hate this world and I want to destroy it." (Goth says, "there's too much evil in this world, there are mean-spirited people, and that makes me sad. :( ")

The BSB do NOT lack emotional power. They put it to use. They have heart (one of them had open-heart surgery at one time to correct a defect). They have love, and their love goes to not only the people who work with them, their family and their friends, but also to the fans. They also never lip sync!

Give the BSB a chance, ok? Maybe you'll see what I mean. Chef Clover 04:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry for sounding harsh. This is what happens when you diss the BSB straight to the fans' faces: they get upset and lash back.

P.P.S. I agree: NSync NSTINKS! They are horrible! I mean i used to like them but it's a good thing they split up!

I have given punk a chance!

It's not that i didn't give punk a chance, it's just I sometimes listen to it. But right now, I'm looking for Sound the Alarm's album. You wanna know who they are? They are a band that graduated from my school! They do some punk, and, boy, they are so hot!

I did not know that Green Day's music originated from British Punk! What other info do you have on them.

But, the BSB did not pay a cheezy rappa to rap in We've Got It Goin' on, Let's have a Party, and Get Down (you're the one for me). That was AJ McLean, and sometimes Kevvy Richardson doin' it themselves. In fact, it makes them hotter!

But, still, which song do you think they tried to do some hip hop?

Chef Clover 15:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know

I think you just heard a rumor, the European/Asian version of Black & Blue, or the "The Call" single, because I didn't hear it on my American album. it just simply wasn't there. It wasn't even listed!

And we are not trying to change each other's opinions. Let's just say that we are sharing some info on selected music topics, okay? If you want some more info, like Discograpy or lyrics or stuff like that, you can check out www.backstreet.net, okay? So, thanks, man.

Chef Clover 21:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

hey, where are you? I want you to see my recently updated userpage! I rearranged the userboxes to "narrate" who i am. I also added some custom userboxes. (Like the tiger one? It's awesome!). what do you think? Chef Clover 23:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry!

I am so sorry! It was just too funny! I gotta tell ya, you have a superior sense of humor! Hahahahaha! (sigh) Once again, i am so sorry. If you wish to do me justice, then you may steal my tiger user box. But still, what do you think about the order of the userboxes? Chef Clover 18:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, check it out!

hi! what's up? i just updated Latest News my user page. You wanna check it out? I hope that you like Megatokyo too! Chef Clover 02:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

(sigh)

you should have mentioned that on your userpage. -_- Chef Clover 02:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

j0

jo! what's up? haven't heard from j0u for a while. have you watched the Olympics? do j0u have any f4vorit3 4thl337s? I do, and they are HOT!!!!! Apolo Anton Ohno and Shaun White are my new crushes, and, not only are they 4th1337s, but they are rockers AND dud3s! they're totally awesome!

happy Mardis Gras!

Chef Clover 20:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me on my successful RfA! It passed with a final tally of 40/9/1. If there's anything I can do to help, just ask! Sceptre ^(Talk)

My RfA

E. Brown, thank you very much for supporting me during my recent RfA campaign! Thanks to you, I am now an admin. Please drop by if you need anything - I'll be glad to help you. Once again, thanks! --M@thwiz2020 22:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Calm down

Hey, I'm not entirely pleased about how the article is right now, but you don't need to let that get your blood pressure up. Calm down. I know you want the Storms section restored, and I would agree to that if it were chopped down slightly. How about you copy the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms page to a subpage and start cutting it there. I'll help. Just calm down. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for supporting my Rfa, Eric! I appreciate your trust. The puppy is now an Admin (final tally 58/7/2) Please let me know if there is anything I can ever do to assist you. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

I don't have a fancy layout like other new admins, but I just want to thank you for your support at my RfA. It passed 48/3/1, so I have officially been promoted. I hope I won't let you down. If I'm not doing something properly, please tell me. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo} ^risin' 21:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Crisis

You're exactly right, and if you don't mind, I'm putting it on my page. People like Storm05 and some others really need to learn this. Hurricanehink 21:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Your post at Talk:2005AHS

You said that I was a "rather imperious figure". What do you mean by that? --AySz88^-^ 05:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, but I'm still not quite sure what you mean. I can't think of any times I reverted a big change; I went to the talk page first for both Golbez's revert and that time when someone automatically converted all the references. Do you have specific examples so I can avoid doing what you dislike? --AySz88^-^ 06:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

2005 AHS

Hey, let us talk about our conflicting ideals for the 2005 AHS.

First of all, what exactly do you find lacking in the current format? I thought you agreed that 3 sentences was enough coverage for Arlene...and I think the whole storms section is consistent with that. The storms section has one paragraph per storm, just like old seasons. The only difference is it doesn't have a separate subsection for each storm - we could add that in, but (just because it's 2005) this doesn't really help readers to find what they're looking for because there are just so many storms. Plus it makes the ToC really ugly.

Then there's the impact section. I know you think the storms section should cover this - and I agree with you. But I still think there should be a separate section that covers just the destruction the season has caused. Nowhere in the storms section will you find that 89 people were killed in Haiti, for instance. In a normal season all this could all fit into the intro or a short summary section, but again, this is 2005.

As for the economic impact section...I don't entirely like this section myself. I didn't add it: I just slapped a section heading onto a paragraph that already existed in the season summary.

So my question is: is there any way you can be satisfied with the season article without having it be longer than 40k? And if so, how can it be done?

Jdorje 05:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, good points.

Storms subsections. The ugliness with the ToC was that it was over a full page long. This inspired people to want to replace it every few weeks, and is the main cause for the button bar madness. At the same time, you're right that without subsections it's hard to find storms. I did add anchors to each storm, so that 2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Hurricane Katrina goes to where you'd expect it. Perhaps we can make a manual ToC for the storms - comparable to the box that has somehow found its way into the top of the storms section, but less pastel-ugly.
Storms section. What flavor are you talking about exactly? I'm all in favor of adding stuff that adds to the continuity of the story. The old storms section had very little of this as it was mostly a collection of numbers.
Impact. I agree an impact sub-page could be useful, and that the economic impact can be merged in with the rest. Not quite sure how to go about it though.
Records section. There is a records sub-page. The main thing I moved there, and the only thing I'm adamant about keeping, is the long-list-of-storms-that-broke-the-earliest-formation-record. It is enough to say that almost every storm set such a record. Everything I moved off of this section went into the statistics sub-page. I'm not sure where the records sub-page came from, or if it has any purpose. But then the statistics subpage is also pretty bad. Other things I moved into the statistics page include the "number of storms" and "total activity" sections (both of which are redundant with the much shorter "number of storms" paragraph that is there now), and the "other records" section (which should not exist at all IMO, since nobody can even say what it means).
Images: I agree more images are good. But remember images need accompanying text, and IMO the main article should stay less than 40k in length (when I finished the revised storms it was at ~38k...but has now grown to 40k). So there is a limit to how many images we can cram in.

Jdorje 06:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Length: Length is crucial. If we have 100k of text, we should condense it into a 35k article with sub-articles covering each point in more detail. Having an article that is too long to read straight through without losing interest is bad.
Images: Not sure what you mean here. Are you talking about the current storms page? Sure, we can change the pictures around there. For the main page, we can add or switch around pictures (the storms section has all meteorological pictures, though it certainly has no pictures of depressions) but the space is limited.
Records, I'm not sure which ones I removed that you think should be there, but I have no problem with adding more in. Better would be to remove-and-replace as a lot of records may already be mentioned up above.

Jdorje 07:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Owie

There's no need to make things personal, Eric. Part of the Wikipedia process is having to learn to work with new editors all the time. Sometimes they agree with our views, sometimes they don't, but at the end of the day, everyone is here to work on the encyclopedia and to improve it. Harsh comments directed at other editors don't help. I've been amazed at the level of civility and productivity that surrounds the Hurricane pages; it is probably what got me interested in Wikipedia in the first place. Everyone has different views on how to do things, and they should be respected, as well as they should respect your views. I see Jdorje has already contacted you to try to get to a middle ground, so start talking. I'll mediate if necessary. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree, keep it civil and please don't bite the (relative, apparently) newbies, Eric. NSLE _(T+C) 07:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

2006 Hall-of-Famers

Sounds like fun.

For damage: 1915 Galveston, Diane, and Juan For weirdness: Subtropical Storm One (1978)

How about yours? Hurricanehink 19:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yea, cool. What's wrong with subtropicals? They are sort of like half-breeds, and they have feelings too! J/k, but the fact it was the only forming January storm on record is pretty amazing. Zeta was a close second, though. Hurricanehink 19:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool about Zeta. Good luck deciding, and have fun at the award ceremony ;-) Hurricanehink 21:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Is it at the Florida hurricanes stadium, or it going to be in an eyewall for the stadium effect? :) On a more serious question, (I forget), do you include seasons in the Hall of Fame? It might be a cool little section, and doesn't rely on damage. It just relies on the combined effort of all of the storms. Well, good luck deciding. Hurricanehink 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Eric, thanks for the message. Here's my nominations for '06. Galveston 1915 -- overlooked due to 1900 but a very important storm. Hattie 1961 -- pretty much self-explanitory. Juan 1985 -- a surprising non-retirement. Zeta 2005/2006 -- I'd nominate this if it occurred any year, but the fact that it occurred on the tail end of 2005 makes it an even better candidate! -- The Great Zo 03:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier. So, here's my nominations:

Florida Keys
Galveston
Hattie
Ana
Zeta

bob rulz 06:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well done. Good choices. Hurricanehink 02:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sweet, and have fun. I'll try and make it, provided steering currents guide me there. I might get caught up in an upper level trough, though. Better post some hurricane warnings; I'm sure there will be plenty of tropical action there ;-) Hurricanehink 02:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Gamma

So let me get this right. The report on Gamma stated that when it was a tropical depression still in the Eastern Caribbean and for a brief moment became Gamma. But then the storm slowly weakened then almost dissipated and floated slowly westward. Then it is possible that the low absorb Gamma and not the other way around so this storm couldn't have been TS 27?? tdwuhs

Hurricane Articles

Ive fixed the Hurricane Kyle (2002) article and added more info in that article. Also i had made a list of names that will replaced names retired from the 2005 and 2006 atlantic hurricane season naming lists. Storm05 20:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see a familiar face

Ugh, the last few days has been without you or Jdorje, so some of the kids got a little out of control. I'm glad you saw Kyle. Otherwise it might be here to stay. Question: Weatherman90 has been posting a lot of links to a website, likely his, with a lot of information for recent hurricanes. While the website seems nice, it is completely unofficial. Should the links be removed from wherever he put them? Hurricanehink 18:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that's good. Nice work with Jose... Glad to see it go. Hurricanehink 18:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I know! In fact, it seems we are one of only like 10 contributors who actually write for things pre:2000 or in other basins! Hurricanehink 20:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

True, there are more than 10, and I respect those who don't stick to 2000-2005 Atlantic hurricane seasons. Good suggestion, I think I will archive it. Hurricanehink 21:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Post-Analysis

How many storms have been revised after Post-Analysis?? I know of Andrew to a Cat5, Gaston of last year, and Cindy this year. tdwuhs

Re Kyle

Uh?, did you read it clearly because its more than gusty winds and some rain. Storm05 17:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Condescending

Chill out, man! No criticism of any writing should be taken as a personal attack. All of our writing can be improved. In particular, a lot of the older hurricane articles (by all of us - myself included) is written to a lower standard and needs a lot of work. This was most evident in the older AHS articles which were tiny ill-written stubs before you guys went back through and improved them. The simple fact is that we've gotten better as writers - when I go back and look at stuff I wrote a long time ago, I cringe. However, nobody likes to have their work criticized, and I will be gentler in the future. Jdorje 17:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Incivility

Your behaviour came off as incivil. If it can come off incivil to me, it can to anyone, least of all Jdorje. Keep the tone a bit more friendly. NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财! 00:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're really thinking of running for admin, you'll need to stop being so easily frustrated with everyone and everything. I felt the tone of your message was incivil. Your message itself not necessarily, but your tone definitely came off as someone pissed - which you probably were - but as such, a tad incivil. NSLE _(T+C) 恭喜发财! 00:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Assessments

To some degree I feel like I'm "taking over" the assessments by reverting some of your re-assessments, but that's not my intention. The most important thing about the assessments is that they be consistent. For the AHS articles, I've reserved B-class for ones that are basically complete. Just about every article before ~1980 is lacking in some way or other. Since there are so many articles (well over 500 of them), once we get one up to B class we probably won't be revisiting it again for a long time. So be careful about upgrading them while there are still obvious things to fix. That's why I suggest working on the stub ones first, to fill them out and get them all up to start-class.

Incidentally, one thing that's missing from almost every AHS article is reference to the best-track. Most data is taken from the MWR, which is less accurate. At some point I'll get my program to make a list of every storm's top winds, dates of duration, etc., and then we can go through all of the articles and fix them.

Jdorje 02:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know there are set criteria...although we had our own tropical-cyclone-criteria discussion. Start: "The article has a good amount of content, but it is still weak in certain areas, and may lack a table". Basically I don't mark something as B if it has obvious and easy-to-fix failings; the 1947 AHS article has no intro which is a huge deficiency. (P.S. I'll archive my talk page; yours is getting up there too.) Jdorje 02:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh. Doing the assessments (555 articles at last count) kindof blew my mind at the scope of the project. I realized there is no way one person could possibly get anywhere alone. And for a couple of weeks all I was really doing was trying to get a handle on the assessments and the number of articles. Only in the last few days have I gone back to real editing...I did a lot of work on Floyd and now I'm going through the AHS articles, just fixing grammar (hopefully I'll make it back through 1950 tonight). But when it comes to people like Storm05 writing with bad grammar, it's better in the long run to get him to improve his writing. A year ago Hink's writing was poor, but now it's really good. What we need is to get more authors involved and make sure they use good writing. Jdorje 03:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of things to do...there are a lot of articles marked as stubs, including a bunch of AHS articles that need some work. Another thing is to go through all the best-tracks and merge the data into the AHS articles...at 30 seconds per storm, this will take about 12 hours to do for the whole Atlantic...insane. A 1 minute per storm...you get the idea. It is a lot of work. Jdorje 03:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And well you should be nervous! It's a monolithic task. The problem is most articles are written from the monthly weather review. So when they say a certain storm peaked or made landfall at XXX strength, that's from the MWR. However if you look at the best-track (or unisys) data, you'll see different numbers. It is the best-track numbers that are correct. I only noticed this recently when I found a lot of the articles (specifically in the 1950-2000 seasons) don't match what the best-track gives. Now, it's easy to make a list of each storm's peak strength from the best-track. A lot harder is determining the landfall strengths...these are typically not included at all in the basic best-track document. Jdorje 03:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

For landfalls, I think it's not so easy. A good example of the problem is Hurricane Andrew, as discussed on its talk page. The landfall there occurred between data points, so although Andrew was a cat4 before and after landfall it was a cat5 during landfall. Other examples where the best-track gives misleading results are Beulah and Hazel. For storms before there were hurricane hunters, I think you're right: you can just pick the closest data point. However I know that the NHC has the landfall data for these hurricanes (you can see the correct data in their list of most intense landfalls), so I would hope that at some point in the future we can get a more complete best-track that does include landfall info (like the modern TCRs do). Jdorje 04:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

ADHD template

I created the template, and I have ADHD. It has sent me through Hell and Back more than once. It hurts my grades, my family life, my social life, and my self esteme. And don't even get me started on doctors who want to write the whole thing off as nothing more than Anxiety. Nevertheless, when properly treated, it is possible to have ADHD without suffering from it. Which is why I just changed the template's wording again. Perhaps we should have two user templates? One for those who have ADHD, and one for those who suffer from ADHD? Both can lead to the same category. This really is too minor to wage a revert war over.--*Kat* 22:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My ADHD is currently undermedicated because I am one of those rare handful of people who develop tolerance to stimulant medication. Although this is not a difficult problem to solve, trying to convince a doctor that it is a problem that should be solved has been a Herculeon task.--*Kat* 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My ADHD is so severe that I don't respond to Adderall XR. Question: XR lasts only twelve hours. Doesn't that bother you? I only get twelve hours out of my medication and it drives me absolutely insane. Sounds like you had fun in school. --*Kat* 07:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi E. Brown, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Signature

Hey... just to let you know that your new signature is breaking (see this diff, for example). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Currently your signature is [[List of Atlantic hurricane seasons|§]][[User talk: E. Brown|Hurricane]][[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/E._Brown|E]][[User:E. Brown|RIC]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones|§]][http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=E.+Brown&dbname=enwiki_p Damages]''[[Special:Contributions/E. Brown|archive]]''

The problem is with the Email bit (emphasis above mine). You can use [[Special:Emailuser/E. Brown]], like how you can use Special:Contributions. NSLE _(T+C) 02:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Devon

Hay Hurricane Eric. I'm Hurricane Devon. I think we have a lot in common. We both like hurricanes, we were both born in 1989, and we both have ADHD. But instead of history, I like science, mainly astronomy. I live in Tampa, Florida, next door to Atlanta, Georgia, somewhat!
— Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 23:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

2005 Atlantic hurricane season

I'm interested to know why you do not think that this article is A-class. From my reading of the assessment scale, it fulfills all of the criteria. (I hope it isn't bad blood about the storms dispute.) —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 03:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I understand your reasoning. I'd also like to point out, at least as far as the intro is concerned, that the average featured article has a three-paragraph intro, so, if anything, the intro is too short. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

False accusation

I note your comments on my recent RFA concerning my "history of vandalism" with a great degree of concern. This is a very serious accusation to be making - particularly as you are the only Wikipedia editor to have ever made it, and that it is entirely without foundation. I am therefore formally asking you to do me the courtesy of withdrawing the allegation by posting a statement to that effect on the RFA talk page, for future reference.--Gene_poole 23:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have fallen in love

...with your Ted Kennedy userbox. I couldn't agree more! Do you mind if I use it on my page? Thanks! Weatherman90 01:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions and comments

I see you have these banners with class names like Stub, B-Class and Start. What are they for and how they work?

Why that you have a merge proposal list in the talk page, I think every storm should have an article.

Ive read the Hurricane Katrina article and it was a good , long but good (long articles + more info = good article).

Was Hurricane Maria in the book storm a real hurricane because some internet sites say it was [1]

E-Series 17:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Category vote

You may wish to voice any concerns on a category vote invloving protected areas here:[2].--MONGO 04:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on Polital Parties userbox page

Although I understand your frustration (just see my talk page), that kind of incendiary talk is only going to hurt our cause, not help it. Although there is a time and a place for rage, I think that in this stage of the battle we have the hearts and minds of most users, and going out and raging like that will only turn people off to our idea. It reinforces the false idea that all us userbox supporters are just immature. Just consider that next time you go on a rant. If this continues then I more drastic speech may be justified, but right now we need to keep our tempers under control b/c the sysops are probably looking for reasons to block all their opposition and you are just handing them your head on a silver platter.

On a lighter note, I think it's pretty funny you are a Republican who listens to the Clash, Bad Religion and Rise Against. Whatever. The Ungovernable Force 04:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't blame him for ranting, I was in a mad rage as well when I found out they were all gone. I got even a bit nastier on someone's user page... Weatherman90 04:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A Western Sahara-related vote

===>Here Make your voice heard. Vote or die. And all that. -Justin (koavf), talk 20:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: User UnAmerican

I posted this below your vote on the deletion review page, but you probably won't see it, so I'm putting it here too:

I'm sorry, but considering your earlier free speech rant I find that a sad reason to keep deleted. I defended your ideas, even though I found them sick (I am seriously offended when I see non-desecrated flags considering this country's long history of genocide and imperialism in the name of "freedom"). Free speech goes both ways, and while I will not withdraw my support of undeletion for the userboxes you want undeleted, (such as republican and troops), I do hope you will consider withdrawing this vote to keep deleted.

The Ungovernable Force 06:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

155.212.231.18

He wreaked havoc on my userpage today. I see he did the same kindness to your page, hopefully he wont strike again! Weatherman90 23:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice! Well at least he wont bother us for a week. It's just another fine example of how childish liberals are. Weatherman90 17:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for voting!

Although this is a bit late in coming, I want to thank you for voting (no matter what your vote was) in my recent request for adminship. You might be aware that it did not pass due to a lack of consensus. The final tally was 21/9/10. I think I will try again this spring or summer after I have gained a bit more experience and met a few more fellow editors. Thanks again!

--MatthewUND^(talk) 05:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Katrina

That is really nice. Nice work with that. Hurricanehink 00:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Very true. I'm personally a bit surprised there was none before this. The tsunami isn't a bad idea, though it might be a little late. Hurricanehink 01:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. The box is good, except the image (too small). Also, the Remember overlaps the December 26, 2004 part a bit. Hurricanehink 01:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine. There weren't many pics of the tsunami in the first place. For the link, maybe you could just say the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake, rather than remember December 26th? I'm really not sure. Perhaps you could bring it up on the talk page. Hurricanehink 01:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The spacing is better, though the picture is still a little unclear from the infobox. You should bring up the infobox on the earthquake page. Hurricanehink 00:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure.... Hurricanehink 01:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, nice job with the userbox. I've added it to my page. -- RattleMan 01:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Storm pics

Thanks. I knew you didn't like the idea, so I didn't want to bother you. Now that you mention it, do you have a better one of; Hermine (2004- Close up when better organized), Matthew (Not NRL), Nicole (2004- Close up when better organized), Danny (2003- Centered and close up showing eye), Mindy (anything but that website), Gustav (one as a hurricane), Hanna (when better organized), or Josephine (not that site)? That isn't all, just the last three years. Before uploading new ones, perhaps we should discuss adding new images first. See you later. Hurricanehink 04:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Well, can you upload them, and then we'll decide from there? Hurricanehink 20:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane fan again!

Hye Eric, I have a question. Your user name is E. Brown yet your signature is Hurricane Eric. What would you say if you could change your name? — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 23:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's cool with me. I just wanted to see what you thought. Talk latter. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 23:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A Picture you might like to see

It was just brought to my attention by Exolauxia that the AMS has made the Monthly Weather Review freely available back to five years ago. I though you might like to see this article, which has pictures of 1975's Hurricane 12. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of my RfA

Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y Arktos 01:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

pongsona image

About (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Oh no

Wow, look what you did! The first word that comes to mind is ouch, then why? Then comes typos, then ripoff, then lawsuit. Oh well, I suppose it's sort of an honor. Hurricanehink 02:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Lol, yea. Hurricanehink 02:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Fun

I bet you can find loads of fun with the Gordon section here. If you have any comments, feel free to communicate.Omni ND 19:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue I - March 2006

Project news

An independent military history peer review has been created for the benefit of the project. A number of articles have already been reviewed, receiving significantly more feedback within the project than they did on the generic peer review page.
The project's Collaboration of the Fortnight got off to a great start with Ferdinand Foch and is now focusing on the military history of Spain.
Two new task forces—dealing with warfare during classical antiquity and the Middle Ages—have been created.
An effort to build a catalogue of high-quality maps for use in military history articles is now underway.
The newly-formed translation department is looking for volunteers to help with translating featured articles from other-language Wikipedias.

From the Coordinators

Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in.

Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months.

Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator

Current proposals

Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy ^e 04:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Tropical Storm Lee (2005) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 10:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Lee

Hey Eric, I know you feel very strongly against this, but reinstating the redirect is in bad faith. Yes maybe redirect for NOW. There is a debate going on the 2005 page on the all storms get an article, IMO the lee article as it is now, contains as much info as the Epsilon article, with a copyedit it can be restored. -- Nilfanion 22:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Eric, calm down please, and there's no need for the personal attacks - I do fall into the category you described I guess, can we agree to disagree? I only mentioned Epsilon because you opposed the merger of it - on article quality grounds, after all in notability Epsilon is as irrelavant as Lee - who cares that the NHC were totally at a loss with it, except hurricane zealots? I also am aware you HATE the list article, storm articles would enable the season article to be as you want it. If you read the debate on the 2005 page, which has gone on without you - which is unfortunate, it seems like most of the community (that isnt just the '05ers) would like to change article criteria. -- Nilfanion 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, its not a personal attack Eric, sorry for the false accusation (thats a result of a newbie misunderstanding), but you calmed down. I understand that you are against the separation of the articles and you consider the content of the list article as it is currently to be the meat of the season. I have hung around here since Katrina, as an anon, but only recently started a full account, so I am aware of your frustration.

On my talk page there are 20 questions I asked - this was about the start of the debate on 2005AHS. If you could answer those questions, I think I might be able to understand you a little better. I think it covers many of your grievances with the '2005ers' (I think that term is OK). I resurrected Lee's article when the debate flared up again, to see how good the least notable storm could be. This was with the intent of informing the discussion better on what COULD be done. It clearly needs work on the writing, but purely on the content contained how far short is it of acceptable to you? I want to work with you and try and resolve this, it isn't fair that you feel excluded. -- Nilfanion 00:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So the first question that suggests, in your ideal world, which 2005 storms have articles - just D,E,K,R,S and W? Personally the first thing your comment on Lee being completely unimportant, I agree. However I think the only consistent notability factor is the impact of a storm. This means that I class Epsilon and Zeta in the same group as Lee. Take Epsilon, yeah it confused the NHC so what? Who outside of the hurricane obsessed world cares? Anyway I think your bigger problem is with the existence of the list article; if all storms had articles the purpose of that article would change completely. So if someone was to take the List article and copy/paste that into the 2005AHS season, is that approximately what you would want? My view of a hurricane season is that it is composed of a series of storms and like most things the season is greater than merely the sum of its parts. So you agree with me there? -- Nilfanion 01:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am from the other camp here (as you probably guessed). I think both of us agree that the list article is a monstrosity. That article does have uses, but not as a place to dump the primary storm info. In my view, irrespective of the storm, a storm article can contain more info and better laid out than the list. Personally I think facts like "Wind shear weakened as [Arlene] entered the Gulf of Mexico" are relevant to the storms, but do not give you any greater understanding of the season. The specific facts which I think are useful are date of formation/dissipation, location, max strength, landfall details and brief summary of impact. Anything beyond that enhances a readers knowledge of the storm, but doesn't really add to their knowledge of the season. If someone wants to know the minor details on a storm, they look up the storm. How would you feel if the Monthly headings in the storm section were replaced with the individual storms, and every storm linked to an article on it? The storms in the season article would then give the summary info (and maybe the infobox) on the storm, and if you wanted more detail on you could look it up. (PS I'm going bed soon, so you might not get a response today) -- Nilfanion 02:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thats right Eric, personally I see 2005AHS as different from A+B+...+Zeta. The problem with storm headings in 2005 AHS is the ToC. The solution to that is a custom ToC. How would you feel if the Lists ToC was adapted for the main article? How about you create Lee's entry for the main article (in your userspace?), giving only the facts you think matter to the season. The minor stuff about Lee can exist in Lee's article. What this represents is a fundamentally different approach to the past, but may not be bad. :) -- Nilfanion 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Eric, I have created a working copy of the 2005AHS storms section here. My view on the lists article as it is now, is a cease-fire agreement to a potential edit war. What is needed now in the off-season is the peace treaty. I'd like you go over to that page and help me develop it. And let's use the discussion page on that article, that way we can discuss things point by point, without overwhelming our talk pages. -- Nilfanion 09:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you said yesterday you could see the pro-article camp sees storm and season as different. Do you see that as a valid statement? What are your feelings on that? You might want to read what I wrote here User_talk:Nilfanion/2005AHS, this contains a series of points from my view, if you could comment on this it would be appreciated. Saying strong merge and then saying however good an article on Lee is it goes IS a valid view, but it isn't anything like consensus is it? Nilfanion 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh sorry, Eric it's just when you said "you guys see the season and the storms as two seperate entities" last night; I thought you had realised what the core problem with the dispute is. From the pro-article side of things that is valid. What I want to try and find is some solution here which you can live with. It is unfortunate that you have become isolated in 2005, but it has happened hasnt it? I think "All TS get an article" is a reasonable position to take. If there is going to be a hard line, use the same as the NHCs, they don't bother with TDs in the same way do they? -- Nilfanion 23:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, well Eric, I am from the pro-article side. If I was to go through 2005AHS inserting Hurricane Katrina and the like before each storm, would you like it better than it does now? I would like to see the season infoboxes gone, they clutter the page needlessly - or maybe revised to give a border to the pic/track map. By the way, this will affect 2005 and the future in the Atlantic, nothing else. It *may* affect '04 and '03 but no earlier; you see this actually will combine with the old notability criteria further back. The isolation thing I was referring to is shown by the FAC vote on the list, I think you do have to be prepared to give up on that at the least - is the idea I suggested above good enough for you? Additionally, could you tell me what ground you are prepared to give, beyond what has already gone? Nilfanion 00:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Eric, seeing as you are not alone on 'not all storms for articles' and the vote has gone against that option, but it can hardly be 'consensus', what I propose to do over the next few days is contact the no voters with view to starting informal mediation (I'm not convinced we should go to formal mediation just yet). Does this sound reasonable to you? -- Nilfanion 12:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Eric, I haven't really been with it past couple days, flu or something like that. It doesn't help that I'm new to wikipedia as a non-anon. What might be an idea is posting that up the proposed mediation on 2005AHS. It is probably going to take a little while to get off the ground, the amount of discussion on it is truly insane, and I doubt I will be much use for a few days. Nilfanion 20:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure we will work it out. Btw, I agree with you on Lee, at the moment the article shouldn't stay, but it can be made to Epsilon quality with effort. What I meant by the comment on the Merging page is that as that vote is concurrent with an equivalent vote on 2005AHS, all yes and no votes to both votes should be interpreted on both. I probably won't be on for a couple of days, but hopefully I'll be capable again when I get back.Nilfanion 21:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Eric, I'm feeling better again now. I have finished making articles on the other minor storms of 2005, its hard enough for us to see how good an article the lesser storms can have, let alone a mediator. As soon as I figure out how to present it I will submit this to WP:MEDCAB and will inform you when I have done that. I do not think that a formal mediation is ideal at this time, primarily because of the wide range of options people are advocating (the all-storms at one extreme to the restore the list to the season article at the other). In any case an attempt at informal mediation will give us guidance on how to proceed further. -- Nilfanion 19:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: award

The WikiDefender Barnstar

Thanks a lot! You were a great help and inspiration in my early days (wow, feels so long ago). I am just doing what I love here, and if anything I write will be read by someone else, then it's all worth while. Also, my contributions are hardly superior to yours. You always manage to state your mind to remind us knuckle-heads of what we are supposed to be doing. There's no one leading the race right now. There's a lot of us up front, and quite a few ones lagging behind, perhaps pulling us back, but trust me, my shadow doesn't fall on you. :) In honor of that, I award you this barnstar for your unnoticed work in keeping Wikipedia the way it is supposed to be. Well done! Hurricanehink 02:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Ivan#Recovery

Sounds good, only I'd like a bit more facts in it. For example, instead of writing Habitat For Humanity and other non-profit relief organizations lined up to do whatever they could to aid in the rebuilding process, you could write, Habitat For Humanity and other non-profit relief organizations lined up to construct 10,000 (or what the number may be) new homes for families that were affected by the hurricane's landfall, and sprinkle it with references throughout. Otherwise, sounds good. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

archive move

I deleted the redirect from the wrong pagename to User talk:E. Brown/Archive 2, in case you wondered where it went. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 04:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a copyright problem with an image that you have uploaded. Please see Image talk:TITANIC for further details. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace." Please don't use it on your userpage as it may fall out of fair use inclusions. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 05:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)}

RE:

Uhhh...maybe you didn't notice but the English wiki isn't updated on any tools that use the ToolServer anymore (for over a week now) - including interiot's and kates. That is what the flashing text "en.wikipedia.org data is no longer updated" means. I actually have 5100 something edits at this point. (The 2-sec rep. lag that you see is for the other encyclopedias - (french, german, etc.) that are still functioning properly. Weatherman90 00:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

2005 storms

Hey, I was going to submit a mediation request to the cabal a couple days ago, but you went inactive for a bit. In the meantime I have worked on Hurricane Irene (2005) and have now gone over Tropical Storm Lee (2005) again. Those are probably the most useful two to do, as they are respectively the storms with the most and least info respectively of the non-articled storms (before their resurrection). I know you dislike their existence as seperate articles, but given your editing experience I'm sure you could provide positive feedback on improving them. If you want to go ahead with a mediation, could you let me know, and I will get that rolling (with those 2 articles we have the evidence a mediator would need IMO). --Nilfanion 14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

The April 2006 issue of the project newsletter is now out. You may read this issue or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following the link. Thanks. Kirill Lokshin 18:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan listed for deletion

You're back!!!!

Welcome back! Long time no see. Has everything been OK? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I know we've had some disagreements, but welcome back anyway, and I'm glad you're alright. :) Happy editing! --AySz88^-^ 04:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, glad to hear you are all right! I see Hink has given you the lowdown on what has happened. I am just about the only editor working on 2005, which is really unfortunate, as I'm basically the only one working substanially on any of the storms at this time. for what its worth on Irene being an FA; I believe its unofficial policy that an article which can survive AfD can be an FA. That means either Irene should not exist as a seperate article or it can be featured; AfD being the forum for "non-notable". Also, it is a non-main page FA, so its not too bad in the long run. As for my position on older seasons, my belief is all Atlantic season articles should have a storms summary like 2004s (2004 isn't perfect, I think a seasonal impact (Florida) is sensible). In theory I believe any tropical cyclone is article worthy, but lack of information will kill any attempt at taking that back into the 20th Century. Personally, I'm not going to attempt to create any articles when I escape 2005; but switch over to improving existing articles.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

The May 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —ERcheck @ 23:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Article formatting

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

Good luck with future writing, and if you have a question about the above, don't hesitate to ask. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Payback

Thanks!

You and adminship

My Request for Adminship

Thanks for the help

Rfa thanks

Question

Merging

Thanks

Thank you

I don't believe it!

oh my word

You're still kidding!

Wait a minute

I have given punk a chance!

I didn't know

Sorry!

Hey, check it out!

(sigh)

j0

My RfA

My RfA

Calm down

Thank you!

My RfA

Crisis

Your post at Talk:2005AHS

2005 AHS

Owie

2006 Hall-of-Famers

Gamma

Hurricane Articles

Well, it's good to see a familiar face

Post-Analysis

Re Kyle

Condescending

Incivility

Assessments

ADHD template

My RFA

Signature

Hurricane Devon

2005 Atlantic hurricane season

False accusation

I have fallen in love

Questions and comments

Category vote

Your comments on Polital Parties userbox page

A Western Sahara-related vote

Re: User UnAmerican

155.212.231.18

My RfA

Re: Katrina

Re: Storm pics

Hurricane fan again!

A Picture you might like to see

Thank you for your support of my RfA

pongsona image

Re: Oh no

Fun

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

Tropical Storm Lee

Re: award

Hurricane Ivan#Recovery

archive move

RE:

2005 storms

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II

List of casualties of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan listed for deletion

You're back!!!!

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - May 2006

Article formatting

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #1