User talk:Titoxd/Archive15

Welcome to my Talk Page!

---

Archived every 50 sub-headings:
Archive 1 (July 7, 2005 to October 8, 2005)
Archive 2 (October 9, 2005 to October 22, 2005)
Archive 3 (October 23, 2005 to November 5, 2005)
Archive 4 (November 6, 2005 to November 19, 2005)
Archive 5 (November 20, 2005 to December 7, 2005)
Archive 6 (December 8, 2005 to December 18, 2005)
Archive 7 (December 19, 2005 to December 29, 2005)
Archive 8 (December 29, 2005 to January 8, 2006)
Archive 9 (January 8, 2006 to January 29, 2006)
Archive 10 (January 29, 2006 to February 11, 2006)
Archive 11 (February 11, 2006 to March 3, 2006)
Archive 12 (March 4, 2006 to April 2, 2006)
Archive 13 (April 2, 2006 to April 22, 2006)
Archive 14 (April 23, 2006 to May 11, 2006)
Archive 15 (May 12, 2006 to June 10, 2006)
Archive 16 (June 10, 2006 to July 4, 2006)
Archive 17 (July 4, 2006 to July 31, 2006)
Archive 18 (July 31, 2006 to September 14, 2006)
Archive 19 (September 15, 2006 to November 11, 2006)
Archive 20 (November 11, 2006 to December 23, 2006)
Archive 21 (December 24, 2006 to February 24, 2007)
Archive 22 (February 24, 2007 to April 12, 2007)
Archive 23 (April 12, 2007 to July 10, 2007)
Archive 24 (July 11, 2007 to November 12, 2007)
Archive 25 (November 13, 2007 to March 3, 2008)
Archive 26 (March 9, 2008 to June 21, 2008)
Archive 27 (June 28, 2008 to September 30, 2008)
Archive 28 (October 1, 2008 to June 23, 2009)
Archive 29 (June 27, 2009 to July 2, 2010)
Archive 30 (July 3, 2010 to June 9, 2011)
Archive 31 (June 10, 2011 to December 30, 2012)
Archive 32 (January 1, 2013 to January 7, 2016)
Archive 33 (January 8, 2016 to March 18, 2020)

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 12 2006 and June 10 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to User talk:Titoxd/Archive34. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Titoxd. 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.

Just curious, do you think we should send a message to all tropical cyclone users about the proper formatting for an article? If we explain clearly how to better existing articles, maybe people would know more of what to do. Simply having it on the Wikiproject page might not have enough of an audience. I was thinking something like this. Some things might be debatable, like the dissipation box on the infobox, so feel free to tweak it.

Dear Tropical cyclone editor,

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.

1. Infobox- Whenever possible, the infobox should have a picture for the tropical cyclone. The picture can be any uploaded picture about the storm, though ideally it should be a satellite shot of the system. If that is not available, damage pictures, either during the storm or after the storm, are suitable. In the area that says Formed, indicate the date on which the storm first developed into a tropical depression. In the area that says Dissipated, indicate the date on which the storm lost its tropical characteristics. This includes when the storm became extratropical, or if it dissipated. If the storm dissipated and reformed, include the original start date and the final end date. Highest winds should be the local unit of measurement for speed (mph in non-metric countries, km/h in metric countries), with the other unit in parenthesis. The lowest pressure should be in mbars. Damages should, when available, be in the year of impact, then the present year. The unit of currency can be at your discretion, though typically it should be in USD. Fatalities indicate direct deaths first, then indirect deaths. Areas affected should only be major areas of impact. Specific islands or cities should only be mentioned if majority of the cyclone's effects occurred there.
2. Intro- The intro for every article should be, at a minimum, 2 paragraphs. For more impacting hurricanes, it should be 3 or more. The first should describe the storm in general, including a link to the seasonal article, its number in the season, and other statistics. The second should include a brief storm history, while the third should be impact.
3. Storm history- The storm history should be a decent length, relatively proportional to the longevity of the storm. Generally speaking, the first paragraph should be the origins of the storm, leading to the system reaching tropical storm status. The second should be the storm reaching its peak. The third should be post-peak until landfall and dissipation. This section is very flexable, depending on meteorological conditions, but it should generally be over 3. Additional pictures are useful here. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its peak, use a landfall picture in the storm history. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its landfall, use the peak. If the landfall is its peak, use a secondary peak, or even a random point in the storm's history.
4. Preparations- The preparations section can be any length, depending on the amount of preparations taken by people for the storm. Hurricane watches and warnings need to be mentioned here, as well as the number of people evacuated from the coast. Include numbers of shelters, and other info you can find on how people prepared for the storm.
5. Impact- For landfalling storms, the impact section should be the majority of the article. First, if the storm caused deaths in multiple areas, a death table would work well in the top level impact section. A paragraph of the general effects of the storm is also needed. After the intro paragraph, impact should be broken up by each major area. It depends on the information, but sections should be at least one paragraph, if not more. In the major impact areas, the first paragraph should be devoted to meteorological statistics, including rainfall totals, peak wind gusts on land, storm surge, wave heights, beach erosion, and tornadoes. The second should be actual damage. Possible additional paragraphs could be detailed information on crop damage or specifics. Death and damage tolls should be at the end. Pictures are needed, as well. Ideally, there would be at least one picture for each sub-section in the impact, though this sometimes can't happen. For storms that impact the United States or United States territories, this site can be used for rainfall data, including an image of rainfall totals.
6. Aftermath- The aftermath section should describe foreign aid, national aid, reconstruction, short-term and long-term environmental effects, and disease. Also, the storm's retirement information, whether it happened or not, should be mentioned here.
7. Records- This is optional, but can't hurt to be included.
8. Other- The ideal article should have inline sourcing, with the {{cite web}} formatting being preferable. Always double check your writing and make sure it makes sense.

Good luck with future writing, and if you have a question about the above, don't hesitate to ask.

Does something like that work? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I was just curious if something like this would work. I'll bring it up there. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My intent over on Ivan past few edits was to split it up into every conceivable section- to make sure when the editing to reduce the storm section occurs no content is lost. Obviously the article is far too split up at the moment - a lot of the sections will go, but when they get remerged we know the content is in the right sections. How long do you think the storm history should be and should those subsections of it go? --Nilfanion (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know I've done some major trimming of the storms section and removed also records/naming per your suggestions (the wave record is commented out currently - can remove or reinstate easily enough from there). The storm history needs a copyedit to make it less repetitive, but the length is sensible now. Its just the impact now, I'm not sure if we need seperate sections for the US states, but I favor that for the work in progress, it shows where there is a lack of information (Alabama is really stubby currently).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Yagrebu roevert has again commited vandalism by clearing his talk page, which contained warnings. I suggest a ban. --Bayyoc 02:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my userpage! The vandals must really like me. :P Excuse me now while I enlarge my ego. Cheers and thanks again, Mopper ^Speak! 05:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

from my userpage as well. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Titoxd, remember me? We had a conversation on IRC, at #editcounters about FIcelloguyTool and another Java application (my project). You mentioned that there was someone already working on the SOAP API, but I forgot his name. Could you remember me, please? Best regards, Nuno Tavares 13:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Roger that. Forwarding..... Thanks! Nuno Tavares 21:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Titoxd,

I am honored by your support in my recent successful request for adminship. As an administrator, I am your servant, ready to help however I can. (In your case, since you've had the tools longer than I, my best use might be menial labor!) My talk page is always open; should you need anything, or should you see me making a mistake -- probably a common occurrence -- please do let me know. I will depend on the good sense of the community to keep me from making a complete fool of myself! :) In gratitude, Xoloz 17:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

PS. If I can be of any help in urging Mr. Parham to the RfA gauntlet, let me know -- I've already offered to nominate him myself, as has just about everybody, I think!

See User talk:Interiot#Toolserver corruption... I implemented the search idea... let me know if that's what you were looking for. --Interiot 20:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still new to the fair use idea, but would images at this site qualify as fair use, PD, or are they not even allowed? They are part of the National Weather Service site, which would make them PD, though they are taken by a fireman (US employee=PD) and 2 other people. What would the copyright status be on one of those tornado images? Thanks for the anticipated help. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I figured, but it didn't hurt to ask. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have just joined the group, and are glad that you are one of the leading lights. I can remember you saying something about Mexicans being called vandals, when I was whinging on about being called one myself. That gave me a good laugh. I think we are probably on a similar wavelength, and I would like to help out. I see a few other level headed types there too. Wallie 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Randy Johnston has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

—G.He has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Hola, te he visto activo en w:es, y me di cuenta que eras administrador, y me podías ayudar con algo, (espero que así sea), mi problema es trasladar esta plantilla Template:Harvard reference, ya que en w:es no existe una plantilla especial para colocar fuentes provenientes de Internet, pero allí esta el problema, no se por donde comenzar, le doy editar y pienso que será pan comido pero ya tengo 30 minutos tratando de que “encaje” allá, lo cual me ha sido imposible, me preguntaba si es que este es tu campo, que la trasladaras para w:es, como Plantilla:Ref-internet, ¿Qué dices?. Saludos --Oscar 07:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Esta bien, desde ya ¡Gracias! --Oscar 07:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Todo genial, gracias por atender tan rápido mi solicitud ;-). Saludos Oscar

Tome en cuenta tu sugerencia de redireccionar el articulo es:Wikificar a es:Wikipedia:Wikificar, y aun pienso que debe borrarse el articulo es:Wikificar. Habiendo hecho eso, espero que reconsideres tu voto. Saludos --Icoyocayan 10:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Mathematics was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help…

Posted by Pruneau 21:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team

Thank you, Titoxd/Archive15! Thank you for voting for my recent RfA, which passed (to my extreme surprise and shock) with a total tally of 66/15/2. For that, I would like to thank you and offer a helping hand in any admin-related tasks that may be required -- it's as simple as leaving a message on my talkpage. Thanks again! -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 22:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, you deserve it. {{PAGENAME}} 22:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's the story. About a week ago, Icelandic Hurricane took a page Hurricanecraze32 was working on in his user space and published it without Hurricanecraze's permission. (The article was Matthew). Hurricanecraze got angry at Icelandic Hurricane, and Icelandic Hurricane said he would change it to make it look different. Then, yesterday (or 2 days ago), Icelandic Hurricane took another page Hurricanecraze32 was working on in craze's userspace and published it, again without his permission. The article was Bonnie (1986). I told Icelandic hurricane that was mean. He said to me that he would change it. Hurricanecraze wanted the article to be merged and for Icelandic hurricane to be punished. I said it shouldn't be merged, as you don't own articles. And that's where we are right now. I think the whole thing is childish, and both should apologize for being childish about it. Hopefully you can push some sense into them. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have Titoxd's page watched. I did stumble onto this mess near the start but didn't look further into it. It seems to have gotten slightly out-of-hand. However, the moment Hurricanecraze posted the stuff onto his userspace (AKA, Wikipedia), he effectively gave up his rights to them, as far as I am aware. I do not see any problem. Just get HurricaneCraze to improve on the article while in mainspace. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:50 UTC (2006-05-24)

The problem is, I doubt they would agree. Icelandic hurricane thinks he did nothing, while Craze is furious. However, good luck if you do mediation. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm commenting on a super old discussion, but since it has to do with me, whatever. I would just like to say that I never stole the Matthew article from HurricaneCraze; I didn't even know he had a draft of it til after I revived Matthew. I just decided to revive the Matthew article that I think Storm05 wrote and then expand on it. And as far as I know, Craze didn't get mad at that. So I guess that clears up half of it. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 13:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tito,

I submit my final grades tonight, so my teaching commitments are formally over till July (summer school) and I will have a bit more time for Wikipedia. I was thinking of opening up WP:V0.5N (and therefore WP:V0.5) on Thursday, what do you think? Will you be around to help if we get any problems? I will contact Maurreen and Wizzy directly as well. Cheers, Walkerma 02:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks as usual for your prompt reply. By all means submit a nomination! I have a couple of detail questions about the templates we'll be using with V0.5.

• I changed Template:V0.5 so that it puts things into Category:Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Articles rather than Category:Wikipedia:Version 0.5. Is that OK? I was thinking that we may need a general category for non-articles, and if we end up (as I think we may) with 2-5000 or so articles in there, the general pages may get lost. I don't have strong views if you need to revert this.
• Do you know if it's easy for us to get Mathbot to work on this project? Do you think it's appropriate? If so, what forms of data do we want? Do we want something (like GAAuto?) to check that our approved articles list at WP:V0.5 matches with the template-generated list? Thanks, Walkerma 03:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I definitely wouldn't want articles added to V0.5 by a bot either, I simply meant something equivalent to the log that could list any discrepancies. A human could then make adjustments to the main list as needed (as Cedars does at GA). I suspect for that aspect we don't need make big changes to Mathbot, we could approach the GA folks (specifically User:Cedars) to see if they could adapt GAAuto (which I think may be this perl script) to generate a log for us. I don't think we need do this immediately, in fact we probably only really need it to be done once after nominations have closed.

For Mathbot, I'm most interested in it generating statistics, a log, and "by quality" tables. I realise that many articles may be unassessed, but with WVWP we will be pushing the idea of using the bot assessments anyway, so hopefully we can get at least 1000 or so of the articles carrying assessments in their banners (mostly A or FA class, probably, though some B-Class too if they are decent and very important topics). I think it would be useful to flag any quality changes on the V0.5 articles after inclusion, for example if an article goes from A down to B we may want to re-evaluate it, or opt to use an older version. I'm also thinking to the future - I am still hoping we can get Mathbot to generate some trees with a huge amount of metadata on one screen (e.g., instead of the ubiquitous blue article link, the links could be colored based on their assessment, with automatic updating by Mathbot). This could be invaluable once we start having to browse through tens of thousands of articles for WP1.1 (next year?). By that time it may be that many articles will have been assessed using the S/S/B/A scheme. I think we may as well start using the bot early on. What do you think? Walkerma 03:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tito! Thank you for your strong support of my requests for adminship. I realize we didn't get a chance to do much admin coaching, but it's been a pleasure getting to know you, and I hope we get to work together more in the future. Through your actions and your words, you've been highly dedicated to helping future admins on their path. For that, I award you this barnstar. Thanks, and if you ever see anything that I could be doing better, please let me know! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to unblock just 152.163.100.199 ? Amongst all the recent vandalism, I've seen just this IP making good edits. Kevin 04:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've placed two civility warning on a user's talk page *cough* Tony *cough* and he's removed them as "trolling" and "silliness," although I also used the "please don't remove warnings" template.

There's some discussion at my talk about it if you'd care to look, but the short version is I'd prefer the warnings to be replaced. Same reason we always want warnings to stay: They are for everyone else as well as the person who's been warned.

Conversly, if you look it over and tell me I'm just being a pain, I'll listen.

brenneman ^{L} 04:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, as always. - brenneman ^{L} 06:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
(Note to self: Next time go for person number two on the log.)

This is the price you pay for being reasonable. Am I being monomaniacal in this thread? - brenneman ^{L} 02:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering if you can block User:144.132.169.197 again because they keep on vandalisng the Nikki Webster article. They have gotten the vandalism warnings because in one of the edits to Nikki Webster they said "I'm not scared of not editing haha, I'm doing this for a good reason". Please block this user again. :). Lillygirl 8:20, 24 May 2006

Thanks Titoxd for reverting the vandalism on my RfA. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you've noticed the IPs at the hurricane talk pages too. I s-protected the Pacific page yesterday. These IPs don't even go to the extent of including a "User:" in their sigs, how unprofessional :P NSLE _(T+C) at 03:09 UTC (2006-05-27)

Hola amigo Titoxd, me permito escribirte porque he reeditado totalmente el articulo Arquites, sobre el cual existe una consulta de borrado, me gustaría invitarte a leer los cambios para que en el caso de que te parezcan bien, reconsideraras tu voto. Gracias--81.0.33.141 18:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Firmado Clarasemp en la wiki en español

Hi Tito, I just wanted to take a few moments to thank you for all of your hard work at Wikipedia 1.0 that has made everything run more smoothly. Your work at WP:WVWP, help with organising the bot, setting up the V0.5 pages, and countless other things has made life a lot easier for all of us associated with the project. I honestly think that without your help we couldn't even have considered getting WP:V0.5 started. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 05:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi Tito, and thank you for your (quick and kind) comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again and I look forward to working on WP 1.0 with you! ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

Hey, I made a layout for my idea of reviewing at User:Chcknwnm/Sandbox. If you think it's appropriate it should probably go to Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations/Reviews. Anyway, let me know what you think, and feel free to say that it will cause too much extra work or isn't appropriate for this project...just looking for feedback. I'll send this message to all the current reviewers to get their imput. Later, Chuck^(척뉴넘) 06:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be a great help if you could ban people(their IPs are obviously seen in the page history) that keep vandalising my userpage. Thanks,  Earth KING  ^(Talk) 23:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my logic error. I felt kind of funny for a while... Ral315 (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not posting anything, especially on something linked to from the main page, but I've never seen the job que at anything other than 0. It would seem to me that if it was ever utilized, we'd all be swamped in things to do. But I don't know. Is there something I don't know? -Mysekurity ^[m!] 02:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. That would explain it. What exactly does it show? I thought the job que was supposed to be for a lot of things, and not just the defcon thing...(?) -Mysekurity ^[m!] 03:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to cause any trouble. But it might happen again(not by me) because it looks redundant. Thanks. TimL 04:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

that article is not afd, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#The_Juggernaut_Bitch

That's exactly why it should be there, it was undeleted to be resent there. Either way, I don't have an opinion on the subject, so feel free to fight it there. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You can not nominate it for afd until the deletion review completes, I asked tawker to revert it for now while I work on the article 72.145.155.253 05:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

he said 'it is currently under another AfD' -- that was not the case and you knew it but you opened another rfa either way 72.145.155.253 07:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

An article can not be on afd and drv at the same time Mineralè 06:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I was reading in the DRV it was re-re nominated for deletion. I was approaced by an editor who wanted to improve the article a bit, I guess the AfD I thought was there (and I guess I didn't check being a tad tired) - thanks for re-opening the AfD - it just seemed to need some second looks -- Tawker 06:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (now that I've found the correct page I'll repost here :) -- Tawker 07:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tropical cyclone editor,

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.

1. Infobox- Whenever possible, the infobox should have a picture for the tropical cyclone. The picture can be any uploaded picture about the storm, though ideally it should be a satellite shot of the system. If that is not available, damage pictures, either during the storm or after the storm, are suitable. In the area that says Formed, indicate the date on which the storm first developed into a tropical depression. In the area that says Dissipated, indicate the date on which the storm lost its tropical characteristics. This includes when the storm became extratropical, or if it dissipated. If the storm dissipated and reformed, include the original start date and the final end date. Highest winds should be the local unit of measurement for speed (mph in non-metric countries, km/h in metric countries), with the other unit in parenthesis. The lowest pressure should be in mbars. Damages should, when available, be in the year of impact, then the present year. The unit of currency can be at your discretion, though typically it should be in USD. Fatalities indicate direct deaths first, then indirect deaths. Areas affected should only be major areas of impact. Specific islands or cities should only be mentioned if majority of the cyclone's effects occurred there.
2. Intro- The intro for every article should be, at a minimum, 2 paragraphs. For more impacting hurricanes, it should be 3. The first should describe the storm in general, including a link to the seasonal article, its number in the season, and other statistics. The second should include a brief storm history, while the third should be impact.
3. Storm history- The storm history should be a decent length, relatively proportional to the longevity of the storm. Generally speaking, the first paragraph should be the origins of the storm, leading to the system reaching tropical storm status. The second should be the storm reaching its peak. The third should be post-peak until landfall and dissipation. This section is very flexible, depending on meteorological conditions, but it should generally be around 3. Storm histories can be longer than three paragraphs, though they should be less than five. Anything more becomes excessive. Remember, all storm impacts, preparations, and records can go elsewhere. Additional pictures are useful here. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its peak, use a landfall picture in the storm history. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its landfall, use the peak. If the landfall is its peak, use a secondary peak, or even a random point in the storm's history.
4. Preparations- The preparations section can be any length, depending on the amount of preparations taken by people for the storm. Hurricane watches and warnings need to be mentioned here, as well as the number of people evacuated from the coast. Include numbers of shelters, and other info you can find on how people prepared for the storm.
5. Impact- For landfalling storms, the impact section should be the majority of the article. First, if the storm caused deaths in multiple areas, a death table would work well in the top level impact section. A paragraph of the general effects of the storm is also needed. After the intro paragraph, impact should be broken up by each major area. It depends on the information, but sections should be at least one paragraph, if not more. In the major impact areas, the first paragraph should be devoted to meteorological statistics, including rainfall totals, peak wind gusts on land, storm surge, wave heights, beach erosion, and tornadoes. The second should be actual damage. Possible additional paragraphs could be detailed information on crop damage or specifics. Death and damage tolls should be at the end. Pictures are needed, as well. Ideally, there would be at least one picture for each sub-section in the impact, though this sometimes can't happen. For storms that impact the United States or United States territories, this site can be used for rainfall data, including an image of rainfall totals.
6. Aftermath- The aftermath section should describe foreign aid, national aid, reconstruction, short-term and long-term environmental effects, and disease. Also, the storm's retirement information, whether it happened or not, should be mentioned here.
7. Records- This is optional, but can't hurt to be included.
8. Other- The ideal article should have inline sourcing, with the {{cite web}} formatting being preferable. Always double check your writing and make sure it makes sense.

Good luck with future writing, and if you have a question about the above, don't hesitate to ask.

Hurricanehink (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I always try my hardest. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Titoxd. If you'll forgive me for having a bit of ego wrapped up in a main page article that I wrote almost all of by myself, can I ask why you removed ATLAS experiment from the 0.5 nomination list? It didn't fail the "significant topics" criterion, did it? ;-) Maybe what I ought to say is that if there are any concrete suggestions on the article I'd be happy to work on them. -- SCZenz 15:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

...is something I have never quite grasped. You just said they only occur when two people edit the same line. So why do we conflict if two people try to add a comment to the same section on e.g. a popular thread on AN/I? Or do we only conflict when two people try to add a new comment to the bottom, thus editing the same, if non-existent 'next' line? -Splash^talk 23:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. That's interesting. Someone should write edit conflict code that actually does what people think it does! I saw te v0.5 thing, and it looks interesting. I'd (vainly) submit one or two of my own articles, but they'd fail the Wikipedia:Does it contain an equals sign? test. Good work though, and interesting to see how it proceeds. -Splash^talk 00:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Titoxd. Your comments have inspired me to look around a little bit at the various suggestions for fundamental articles in physics, and although I support projects like this I have a problem I wanted to run by you... Many of our physics editors are professional physicists, and most of those who aren't are still interested primarily in current research topics. You might be able to imagine that bringing an article like weight up to featured status is a lot less interesting to most of us than something that relates to our current research. Wikipedia:Vital articles has no topics that I'd consider even close to current research; it doesn't even include basic areas of physics with a fair amount of popular awareness, like General Relativity, String theory, particle physics, or most other topics found in {{Physics-footer}}. Do you think it's the vital lists that need to be expanded, or is the 2nd half of the 20th century just not core encyclopedia material? -- SCZenz 07:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The overlapping terminology for all this stuff confuses the heck out of me, so I missed key articles entirely. That seems like an area that WikiProject Physics could help with, so (going along with an earlier query I made) I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Key articles. We'll see what happens with it. I might look at some 0.5 Nat Sci articles if I have time. -- SCZenz 07:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

In my RfA, which passed!

Wise I'll try to be.

You are an editor that I respect the highest amount, and I am really honored to have your support. Thanks for all your nice comments in your support vote, and thanks again!

-- Natalya 03:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Number 1, June 4, 2006

The Hurricane Herald

This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The Hurricane Herald aims to give a summary of the activities of the WikiProject over the past month and upcoming events over the next month. In addition monthly tropical cyclone activity will be summarized.

You have received this as you are a member of the WikiProject, please add your username in the appropriate section on the mailing list. If you do not add your name to that list, the WikiProject will assume you do not wish to receive future versions of The Hurricane Herald.

Storm of the month

Typhoon Chanchu was the first typhoon and first super typhoon of the 2006 Pacific typhoon season. Forming on May 9 over the open western Pacific Ocean, Chanchu moved over the Philippines on the 11th. There, it dropped heavy rainfall, causing mudslides, crop damage, and 41 deaths. It moved into the South China Sea, where it rapidly strengthened to a super typhoon on May 14, one of only two super typhoons recorded in the sea. It turned to the north, weakened, and struck the Fujian province of China as a minimal typhoon on the 17th. The typhoon flooded 192 houses, while heavy rainfall caused deadly mudslides. In China, Chanchu caused at least 25 deaths and $480 million in damage (2006 USD). Elsewhere on its path, strong waves from the typhoon sank eleven Vietnamese ships, killing at least 44 people. In Taiwan, heavy rainfall killed two people, while in Japan, severe waves killed one person and injured another.

Other tropical cyclone activity

• Tropical Storm Aletta existed in the eastern Pacific Ocean from May 25 to May 29, peaking as a 45 mph tropical storm.

New and improved articles

• New storm articles include: Typhoon Joan (1970), Hurricane Bonnie (1986), Tropical Storm Matthew (2004), Storm of October 1804, Typhoon Chanchu (2006) and Cyclone Olaf.

• New non-storm articles include: Tropical cyclone rainfall climatology, Dvorak technique and List of Bangladesh tropical cyclones.

• New Featured articles: 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Hurricane Mitch, Hurricane Irene (2005) and Hurricane Claudette (2003)

• Articles which became A/GA class: Hurricane Katrina (A), Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans (A), Hurricane Felix (1995) (GA), Cyclone Percy (A), Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 (A), List of New Jersey hurricanes (A), Hurricane John (1994) (A), Tropical Storm Isabel (1985) (GA), Tropical Storm Odette (2003) (GA)

New articles and improvements wanted

• An article is requested on subtropical ridge
• The current collaboration of the fortnight is Hurricane Gilbert, please help improve this article.
• Improvements are requested to Indianola Hurricane of 1886, Hurricane Camille and Hurricane Andrew.
• The WikiProject is likely to submit Hurricane John (1994) and Hurricane Katrina to Featured Article Candidates in the near future, so please help improve them to featured standard.

Member of the month

The May member of the month is TitoXD. The WikiProject awards this to him for his brilliant work in improving articles. TitoXD joined the WikiProject in October just after it had been founded. Since then he has contributed substantially to many articles, for example Hurricane Nora (1997), which is currently a Featured Article Candidate. He is also actively involved in the assessment of articles and so helps to improve many more articles.

Explanation of content

If you have a topic which is not directly related to any specific article but is relevant to the WikiProject bring it up on the Newsletters talk page, and it will probably be included in a future edition of The Hurricane Herald.

These two sections are decided by the community on the newsletter's talk page:

• Storm of the month: This is determined by a straw poll on the page. While all storms will be mentioned on the newsletter, the selected storm will be described in more detail.
• Member of the month: Nominations are made on the talk page, voting is by secret ballot; read the talk page for details. The winner receives the WikiProject's barnstar (when we make it).

Main Page content

• 2005 Atlantic hurricane season appeared on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on June 1.
• Hurricane Floyd will appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on June 17.
• Entries from Dvorak technique, Typhoon Joan (1970), Typhoon Chanchu (2006), and Storm of October 1804 appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know column during May.
• Entries from 5 other articles relating to tropical cyclones had appeared in the Did you know column earlier in 2006.

Storm article statistics

Grade	April	May	June
FA	7	7	10
A	4	5	7
GA	0	3	5
B	62	66	82
Start	154	177	168
Stub	13	12	10
Total	240	263	282
percentage ≥Less than B	69.6	71.6	63.1

The assessment scale

• The cyclone assessment scale is one of the bases of the new assessment scale for Version 1.0 of Wikipedia. It splits articles into several categories by quality, to identify which articles are "finished" and which ones still need to be improved.
• The assessment scale by itself counts of several grades:
  • FA: reserved for articles that have been identified as featured content only.
  • A: this grade is given to articles that are considered ready for Wikipedia:peer review. The way to get this grade assigned to an article is by asking other cyclone editors at the WikiProject's assessment page.
  • GA: reserved for articles that have passed a good article nomination.
  • B: these articles are "halfway there", and have most of the details of a complete article, yet it still has significant gaps in its coverage.
  • Start: articles that fall in this category have a decent amount of content, yet it is weak in many areas. Be bold and feel free to improve them!
  • Stub: these articles are mostly placeholders, and may in some cases be useless for the reader. It needs a lot of work to be brought to A-Class level.
• The way to use these assessments is by adding a parameter to the WikiProject template on the articles talk page ({{hurricane|class=B}} as an example). This feeds the article into a category which is read and parsed to create an assessment table, summary and log.

Congratulations

Congrats, Mr. WPTC Member of the Month. :P NSLE _(T+C) at 00:55 UTC (2006-06-04)

:O I'm really going to need a place to hide for a bit... :P Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

V0.5 article reviews, and WVWP

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Hi, I'm back from CIT, it went well, we had around 80 attendees for our panel on Wikis. I agree that this idea is nice, but I think we need to clarify who will assess what. At present I assess things I feel I can, or things I like, and that doesn't always fit with what people may think I can do. I want to make sure we get articles assessed at a decent rate - but then again having a specific list may actually encourage some to review more, I don't know. I certainly think it would be nice to set up:

• A "second opinion" review page, along the lines of this sandbox page, for those articles the reviewer feels are outside his/her area of expertise.
• A "disputed" page for cases where the nominee has a strong disagreement with the reviewer.

What do you think?

I'm going to bed now, but I'd like to start contacting WikiProjects for a second time this week. Can you think how to word the message, and I'll also give my views on it tomorrow night, at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Work_via_Wikiprojects#The_next_postings. Walkerma 06:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the disputes page should certainly do that too. What should be done if someone gets upset about their nomination being rejected - just say, "Judges decision is final," or "Send it to the Second Opinion page" or "Discuss it on the Disputed page?" What system (if any) should we have for such appeals? Oh, and I meant to say, for 0.5 I think it should be fine for us to review outside our areas of expertise, we can put in more formal requirements for V1.0 (for which the review process is much more rigorous). The second opinion page would be a simple way to handle our apprehension on this for now. Thanks, Walkerma 07:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd put Sandy on hold. I hate to put FAs like this on hold, but this isn't Babe Ruth or Jackie Robinson, who perhaps do deserve to sit alongside Wayne Gretsky on the CD. Perhaps I'm not the best choice for second opinion, though - if I'm wrong and Sandy is in the most notable 6 or so baseball players of all time, and an FA, then he should go in. I suspect he will get on a later version. Walkerma 05:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

AA + quality of article scale

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Thanks for the idea ... would you help me in tweaking the data. Maybe like 0-3, start ... 3-5, stub ... 5-7, b-class ... 7-8, GA ... 8-10 a-class or it just can't be used that way. Lincher 03:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks for the addition to the AA project, will try to add it in the next week. Lincher 04:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Question answered

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. I've answered your question. In it, I assumed you meant "non-Bureaucrats" where you wrote "non-admins". And sorry for the long statement :) Cheers, Redux 12:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Titoxd/Archive15, thank you for participating in my RfA. It passed with an amazingly unopposed 77/0/1. Thanks for the support everybody! If you see me doing anything wrong, want to ask me something, or just want to yell in my general direction, leave me a note on my talk page. I promise to try and knock out Wikipedia's problems wherever I may find them!

Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza/Programs/Admin coaching

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Want to ask you rather than publicly. I think I'm getting to the point where I could coach others. Is it presumptuous of me, do you think, to remove my name from the coachee list and add it to coach even though I was never coached? (and am I wrong to think I am getting to that point?) Thoughts? Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Found Something or just to let you know

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The word neglection exists, I found it in the dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=neglection 24.188.203.181 03:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll on footnotes

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are right. I posted my rsp and modified the proposal accordingly. I don't consider it a procedural vio since it is a trivial issue, and since the same end result will be feasible by your global variable proposal. Actually, personally I wouldn't mind if it was dropped alltogether. If you have no other objections, I'd appreciate changing your vote. Thanks for the input and the global idea of working around this detail!  NikoSilver  ^{(T) @ (C)} 10:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WPTC importance cats

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

As I commented on the WPTC talk page I noted Mathbot was noting importance now, so I expanded the hurricane template and made cats for it. However thinking about it now, I am not sure if I got the cats right. I put them in as extra sub-cats of Category:Tropical cyclone articles by quality. Seeing as you are an admin with intimate knowledge of both WPTC and 1.0, it seems obvious to ask you to double check to see if I got the layout right (and correct if I haven't). I suppose we will know for sure if tomorrows log shows Mathbot noticing that Top-Class has been assigned to talk:Tropical cyclone.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh well I did get it wrong... still its correct now isn't it?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)