User talk:Runningonbrains/Archive 6

This page is an archive of past discussions and postings on my talk page. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Any edits will be reverted. To contact me, post on my talk page. Namaste.

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Tornadoes in Hawaii

Category:Tornadoes in Hawaii, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 06:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Weather up for FRC

Weather has been nominated for a featured portal review. During this review, editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the portal from featured status. Please leave your comments and help us to return the portal to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, portals may lose its status as featured portals. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha

Just though I would let you know I just about giggled with excitement when I saw you were getting involved in the Mid-April 2011 tornado outbreak article. I hope life has been treating you well; I haven't seen you around the wiki hardly at all. At any rate, it would help us greatly if you could help out with that article. The more experienced severe weather editors we have on board the better. =) Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 05:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

With regards to freely licensed images in the tornado outbreak article, I even checked Flickr for ones of the Tuscaloosa tornado but came up empty. I added the {{Image requested}} template to the talk page, but I doubt that will produce results. It seems the only routes here for images might be permissions requests and or fair-use rationales. Any other suggestions? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 16:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second question

You might take a look at my question here; I forgot you were an admin. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 17:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems HJ Mitchell got back to me...but feel free to weigh in if you want. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 18:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tornados

I did not ignore the note. 350 is currently the most accepted number by up-to-date sources. Marcus Qwertyus 21:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Thanks for the tip about putting in an edit summary. I too have been removing premature EF5 ratings to the Tuscaloosa tornado 8^) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongoose470 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Super Outbreak" as an adjective

I agree that such an adjective should be officially defined before using such terminology to describe an event. I accept the undo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongoose470 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: April 25-28 2011 Tornado Outbreak wording

Good evening! What I meant to do with my edit was to clean up that particular section so that it would be clear that the Tupelo-Gainesville outbreak was actually the second-deadliest in U.S. history, according to the known death tolls. I didn't make it clear enough the first time around but I tried again. (CapeFearWX (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Runningonbrains. You have new messages at Ks0stm's talk page.
Message added 14:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Made a win script

Enjoy the Windows script for counting tornadoes. It's trivial to make it point to another table when the time comes. -- ke4roh (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield Debris

It's stated in the SPC storm reports

A LETTER FROM SPRINGFIELD CAUGHT IN UPDRAFTS WAS FOUND IN MILLBURY AT 820 PM

Cyclonebiskit (talk)

Re: yeah, that news article is full of shit; it's pretty much accepted that it was a single tornado.

That is your personal opinion. How about a citation? You offer no citation other than Grazulis. What page number? How about a sample piece of text that supports your claim? How can anyone verify that? I am reverting your revert. Think wisely before starting a revert war. "that news article is full of shit; it's pretty much accepted that it was a single tornado." Back that opinion up. How do I know you are not "full of shit?" I added an additional citation. TimL (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Weather

Thanks for continuing to update the portal. I have commented on finding more red links and about the portal's "on this day" stories slightly too US-centric.[1] Please take a look and comment on it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Runningonbrains. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 02:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Expanding) Blue Circle Phenomenon appearance on NEXRAD weather maps.

To date there are no explanations of this repetitious phenomenon.

This is at least a valid stab at explaining the incidental appearance of expanding blue circles appearing at a distance from radar sites. The comparative analysis to explosive shockwaves may be removed if it will prevent misunderstandings.

I could express the system in greater systematic detail if you wish.

Regards, John Jthuebner (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Expanding) Blue Circle Phenomenon appearance on NEXRAD weather maps...Continued

I agree with the page change to the Radar page and unfortunately, this is original work - my apologies. I'd like to know your thoughts on the phenomenon which I can possibly provide a screen captured image. I believe that the process occurs in relatively calm but saturated air where the heat of vaporization reaches a super critical level forcing the moisture to diffuse outward from the source and those radars that are in Clear Air Mode can pick up on the wave of outflowing moisture.

Great to hear from you so soon,

John

Blue Circles Cont.

The image you provided is not the correct image I'm referring to. I'll get back to you after next week - Going to Hilton Head for a week. When I get back I'll try to obtain a sequence of images. It shouldn't take long as these expanding circles are quite common. Have a great week. John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jthuebner (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Runningonbrains. You have new messages at Tim1357's talk page.
Message added 03:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Just letting you know that I responded to your request. Tim 1357 ^talk 03:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weather records

I'm sorry. I won't be rude anymore. Scheridon (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttle promotion

Doesn't look like you filled out the template for the promotion. Says filename.jpg

FPC closure

Hi RoB! Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/STS-134 launch, we do need the help. A couple minor squabbles:

Make sure you keep the comment "End of FPs" at Template:Announcements/New featured content, your edit removed it. I have added it back. The comment is used by my FPC-closing script. See below.
Make sure to increment the FP count at Wikipedia:Featured pictures when promoting, I have done so for your promotion.
Instead of doing all that work manually, you can use a script I wrote: User:Jujutacular/closeFPC. There are only a few things you still have to do manually, mainly adding the image to the proper sub-page of WP:FP. If you have any trouble with it, or you are not sure exactly how to install/use it, let me know.

Hope this helps! Thanks for taking an interest in FPC closures, and I hope to see you around again. Cheers, Jujutacular ^talk 00:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 21-27, 2011 outbreak sequence

Rather than getting into a messy revert, I'll discuss here. The two tornadoes listed at the end are merely a continuation of the previous event rather than a separate outbreak. The front stalled out near the East Coast, creating continued severe weather events, including those two tornadoes. Since it's synoptically the same system, there's no real reason to exclude them. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, no argument here now. Thanks for the clarification. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radar Blue Circles Continued

I'm back from Hilton Head. Sorry for the delay on this subject. I have already captured an image from http://radar.weather.gov/ridge/Conus/full_loop.php that shows the expanding circles (always in the morning and at a distance from the radar sites). I can provide the screen captured images but I’m not sure how to attach the images in this forum. Thanks, John

I’ve read a little about you and it seems that we have much in common. I majored in physics and also have an interest in meteorology (and space weather). I once considered majoring in meteorology. It is because of our common interests that I prefer to work with you on this phenomenon - If you are okay with that. 216.49.114.77 (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is what you call a forum, them this is how you include an image. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping with the over-tagging.

Hi Runningonbrains, thanks for helping with the over-tagging on the article, Ahmed Abdel Azeem.

Recall: 04:31, 19 July 2011 Runningonbrains(talk | contribs) (6,874 bytes) (Holy over-tagging Batman!)

I have been quite active trying to rescue the article and did not feel it would be appropriate for me to remove the tags which had become irrelevant. So, thanks for taking it in hand. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Annular Typhoons

I found information on the article on Typhoon Rusa that mentions annular structure in the storm's meteorological history section. I don't know if that is enough to make a annular typhoon section but just a thought. Stormchaser89 (talk) 9:45, 22 July 2011 (US Central)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 21, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nahum Gergel

Hello, Runningonbrains,

I've just finished adding references to the article about Nahum Gergel and wondering is this enough or I shall look further?

Also, I've started to work on the Russian translation of the article - as soon as translation is finished I'd like to contribute it and to link it to the original English article. Is there an easy way of doing it (providing there is an already existing article in English)?

Your help is greatly appreciated!

VRaykin. VRaykin (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:

Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks.
Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages.

The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Proposed deletion of Steven Joseph

Hello, Runningonbrains, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, Steven Joseph, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! ... discospinster _talk 21:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Steven Joseph

Hello, Runningonbrains, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Joseph whether the article Steven Joseph should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Steven Joseph, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! ... discospinster _talk 22:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Mass Updates of Climate Data

Hello...

I posted a request regarding climate data here WikiProject Meteorology. In going through this section, it looks like you've got a meteorological background. I would love your opinion if you get a moment. I committed a newbie faux pas by posting without properly reaching consensus.

Right now, just looking for feedback. If I touch a page, I get plenty of feedback :-). Seems like things are a bit slower in the talk project pages, so thought I'd get more active in asking folks to sound off.

If reaching out is a Wiki faux pas, please chalk it up to not knowing the community. I know weather normals and averages, but I'm still new on Wiki.

Thank you.

Frisch1 (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Frisch1[reply]