User talk:Hurricane Angel Saki/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Hurricane Angel Saki. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I just thought I'd say keep up the good work with the pictures. Well done! Hurricanehink (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not, so I guess you can go ahead and upload the Fifi pic. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could you please sign your posts on talk pages using ~~~~? Cheers, NSLE _(T+C) at 07:56 UTC (2006-05-28)

Cool, how do you change the timezone that appears in your timestamp when you sign comments? —Min un ^Spiderman 15:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks —Minun ^Spiderman 15:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As a userbox fan of FLCL, would you be willing to vote for its nomination at Wikipedia's Article Improvement Drive? If elected, it will be the subject of a week-long overhaul, in an attempt to pass in to Featured Article status! Thanks, Litefantastic 17:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The August issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. Moving that off would leave a 1951-1968 seasons list, which would be a little weird. I don't know. You should bring it up somewhere, like 1950-1969 talk page or on the Wikiproject talk page, and see other opinions. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The September issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:33, 3 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)

{{User:Llama man/Userboxes/Smash Bros.|Mr. Game and Watch}} should be changed to {{User:Llama man/Userboxes/Smash Bros.|Mr. Game and Watch|Mr. Game and Watch}}, because the userbox's {{{1}}}|{{{2}}} indicator means that you have to type the name of the Wikipedia article referring to the character and then the name of the character. {{{1}}} means the Wikipedia article name, while {{{2}}} means the actual character name.

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) 00:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

After a long hiatus on my part, the December 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) 22:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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) 23:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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) 18:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think they're good. I don't see why not. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You could use the move button at the top of the page to move Hurricane Adolph to Hurricane Adolph (dab). You would have to ask an admin to move your sandbox article to the main article. However, I'm not sure if Adolph 01 should be at the main article. It wasn't retired, it was just removed. The WPTC standard for names that were removed but not retired is to have the year identifier. Thus, I would recommend you moving it (when it's done) to Hurricane Adolph (2001). I didn't get a chance to look at your article (I'm working on an article and there's too many tabs open), but be sure to do a thorough Google search for the storm, including Spanish sources if you know how to read the language. Good luck with it. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The March 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) 22:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the inflation value is how for how many significant digits you want. 1 would be 10.1, 2 would be 10.12, 3 would be 10.118, etc. Also, you can put a greater than or less than. Just put | Damagespre= under the damage total, with whatever sign you want in front of the damage total (<, >, etc.) Hurricanehink (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The April 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) 16:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your relatively timely response (I'm used to forums in which people often take months to respond.)

I understand the mix-up that happened, however I should have made myself more clear.

What I meant was that I do not agree with putting even certain Japanese commentary (translation or article link) on the American page even during the "Fan-Sub" periods (Even ones with extensive fan-subbing periods such as Naruto and Bleach.)

I understand that the process is similar, as series and movies come out in the states for example there will be immediate critical reviews available in Entertainment magazines to warn if the production seems to be a waste of time to even consider viewing. However the danger with that is generally Anime is still "fresh" in the American market, and Japanese TV Stations and Advertising corporate giants do not neccesarily know for sure what American Anime fans will reject or go crazy over.

As time goes on there is increasing amounts of Japanese exposure to American music and entertainment and vice versa via Internet forums and popular entertainment. However, since there is currently no major 'authority' (Aside maybe from Shueisha or Shonen Jump and/or Tokyopop) on these cultural coordinations going on, we have to be careful what sources we get our opinions from regarding Anime because they could very well be biased and not even reflect Japanese youth's opinion on the series.

It is because these lines are still gray that we can't just take Tv Tokyo or Dentsu's word for it just yet.

Studios have made big mistakes over this gap in inter-cultural communication and lost millions of dollars over it (Such as the assumption that nobody in future generations in Japan OR America would want to see Astroboy on Television, so someone threw out the original VHS copies and apparently even Osamu Tezuka doesn't have them any more!! As a result of that this is the reason that Cartoon Network evidently has shown a REMAKE of it, not to give it a fresh look, but because the damn original tapes were freaking lost!! Pathetic!!)

This is where your comment on Fansubs came in. Fan-subs are basically now possibly serving as a function to American Advertising corps and International Media Corporations alike to be able to track by WebSite stats and other means what exactly American Anime or Sci-Fi fans are watching/downloading and how trends are going.

I believe for a fact that it was because of the presence of a famous Fan-Subbing website (Can't remember the name of it right now) that provided Naruto Downloads for the greater good that Funimation or whomever owns the lisence for Naruto I decided to pick it up.

So when we base reviews of series based on these Editorials posted by certain corporations (Both American and Japanese) we can't be 100% sure that it's based on the frequency of fan-sub downloads or anything that would seem to be factual just yet.

I personally would take a fan-sub website's success and request ratio for a particular series to be verfiable evidence that a series was well-recieved. Generally fan-sub websites in the past and now are referred through a kind of word-of-mouth process. (I myself have recieved them frequently through AIM, and other instant messager programs.)

I am actually not sure what to think of Shueisha's commentary regarding the series or not anymore, because since Anime and Manga are actually now being created in America by Americans, and more Americans are becoming connosieurs of the genre, we now have to establish some kind of authority for ourselves what we like and what would go well here.

It was (and still is to an extent) largely believed that only sick-minded, psychopathic and socially withdrawn people both Japanese and American would like some Anime series such as Excel Saga, Azumanga Daioh and other series featuring pointless and spastic comedy. As the information age progresses though these myths are finally being dispersed and/or anaylzed for validity and depth of reconsideration.

However, so long as these generalizations remain afloat we have to do as much as we can as Anime fans to not label series too much. In Japan, Anime is typically enjoyed by people of diverse socio-economic backgrounds, gender, sex and age. Some new Anime series such as Beck: Mongolian Chop Squad have lulled in fans of Rock, Punk, Ska and persons considering themselves Anti-Establishment in General. Lets hope we can achieve the same amount of diversification in this society which is truly 'heterogenious' in many ways, shapes and forms. JankenTheOne 16:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC) Janken

Okay I just re-checked the page and apparently either you or someone else took down a whole lot of the Shueisha Tv Tokyo, Dentsu , other Japanese articles that were reviewing Suzuka.

So basically I suppose you can ignore the big mess I wrote above, but I do approve of you using American Anime fan-site reviews, which are typically more reliable than big comapny reviews which have their own motives.

JankenTheOne 16:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Janken

A goddess descends to your talk page

Hi, I noticed your username appears on this category and would like to invite you to take part in a general improvement drive on all articles relevant to Oh My Goddess! including character articles, episode articles and others. -- Cat ^chi? 20:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We came upon it in your contribs, and thought it may be a great article. However, its hasn't been expanded in a month and the article looks very useful to the project. We're not sure if you're still around or not. See WP:WPTC for more details. Notify me if you want someone else to finish it.^Mitch32^contribs 02:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Hurricanehink/Active

Please, next time you publish a sandbox article, make sure you publish it by moving it to the main namespace. You move pages by clicking the move tab/button, which on my view is between the history and watch tabs. Pages in your userspace should always be movable.

Once you click the move button, you should see a screen that allows you to choose the new name, and a checkbox that also moves the talk page to talk:newpagename. The results of moving a page are redirects at the old name (and talk page) pointing to the new name. At the new name, the old page's contents are present, as well as its history. Basically, when using the move button, the page takes its history with it to the new location. When copy-and-pasting, it takes only the text and not its history.

If you need assistance moving pages, see Help:Moving pages.

Moving a page is should always be used when publishing sandbox articles. This is most crucial when more than one username has edited a sandbox article, because a Wikipedia:Copy and paste move would destroy its history, requiring merging of the page histories. For further information, please see Wikipedia:Page history. I am pretty sure, but not certain, that this is less of an issue when one and only one username has edited something. Nevertheless, only publishing sandbox articles by moving them with the move button is a good editing habit to get into.

I just saw this with your new article, Hurricane Rick (1997) and saw how it had been created. I'm just letting you know.

In the event that you cannot publish an article by moving it, (usually this is due to a redirect to somewhere else existing there, or something with its own page history), any administrator will be willing to offer assistance. Just simply ask one for help.

In short, when publishing future sandbox articles, please move them by using the move button.

Thanks, Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case, it probably is still better to merge the histories. While I don't doubt that IP is address is you, the problem is that an IP address does not equal you. Your IP address is not necessarily constant, and may change over the course of time. Similarly, your IP address is not necessarily exclusive to you, and may be shared by multiple people. Basically, the correspondence relationship between people and IP addresses is many-to-many. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

On 4 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hurricane Rick (1997), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! · AndonicO ^Hail! 09:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The December 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. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say really quickly, I love that new image for Dennis's infobox. Keep it up, and it's great to have you back active again. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, awesome job with Elida. I love the "one edit before publishing" articles. I'm crossing my fingers that the archives will come back up soon. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure how seriously you're pursuing it, but User:Storm05 is making an article on Tropical Storm Felice in 1970, which I know you were also planning. User:Storm05/Tropical Storm Felice. Maybe you could collaborate, but I just wanted to bring it to your attention. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! :) --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Hmm, that's why I'm not a big fan of WPAC articles. The data isn't the best, and I've noticed some ambiguity whether a TC was responsible for a significant event, or if the TC's impact was part of a larger event (see (here). The key to decide what information is best would be either the most updated or a source from the government (like a report from the WMO, but I doubt Linda would exist there). --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

On 18 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hurricane Elida (2002), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is an encyclopediac way to make an article on them, with an article on May 2002 Indian Ocean Quadruplets. Perhaps it could be done like that, but I'm not sure. However, one way to have it in one article would be to bring back an old article idea I had - Tropical cyclones in 2002, which would be part of the series Tropical cyclones by year. It might be a lot of work, but I think it'd be only logical to have an article that is the parent of all of the seasons in a given year. I've always been interested in that idea, but it always seemed like too big of a subject. Granted, it might take some discussion to determine the best way to do the article, since it'd be the first of its kind, but what are your thoughts on that? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I was wondering between splitting by basin or by month. Splitting by basin would mean that some months would be dealt with several times, but at least all storms would be together. On the other hand, splitting by month might be hard to keep track of basin totals, but it has a very well-defined time frame. Given that the season articles already list each storm in order, I think it'd be nice if in the article that they'd be listed by month. So, I'm imagining that it'd list each month, and so January would begin with any storms that persisted into the year. Obviously we'd still have the basin articles, meaning that the content in this new article would have to be different. Entire storm summaries, then, would become redundant. So, I'm not sure we'd need infoboxes either. I'm sort of thinking that a satellite image would be neat, such as the strongest or deadliest cyclone of the month. I was also imagining leaning toward only including named storms (or, in the NIO, including all storms of TS status). What are your thoughts? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I forgot about storms like the 1991 Halloween Nor'Easter, but that'd be an exception. However, I mentioned before that all NIO TS's would be included, so obviously Bhola and Gorky would be included. The reason I'm leaning to generally only including the named storms is to avoid potential conflicts between warning agencies. However, since there is no conflict in the Atlantic or East Pacific, all unnamed cyclones of storm status should/would be included. That said, I think the exceptional unnamed storm could be included in with the rest of the storms, rather than having an unnamed storm section. It's a question of whether we'd want to include 91C in 2006 with the rest of the storms, in an other storms section, or not even include it in the article. Personally, I don't think it should be included in the article, as it is not in the database. Limiting it to named storms makes it easier for the SHEM, though it's not a trouble for the NHEM. Would you agree? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the NHC adequately explains Simone here. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I think so. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy of AJM81. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's cool about your name. Good job with the article. I think it could another look-through - perhaps you could ask another user to copyedit it. However, it looks good for a storm in that time period, and after it gets a copyedit you should go for GA nom. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

On 1 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hurricane Naomi (1968), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

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. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)