User talk:E. Brown/Archive 4

HURRICANE ERIC ADVISORY ARCHIVE 4

This is an archive page, DO NOT edit!

Assessments[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ADHD template[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My RFA[edit]

Hi E. Brown/Archive 4, 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)[reply]

Signature[edit]

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

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. NSL E _(T+C) 02:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Devon[edit]

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)[reply]

2005 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

False accusation[edit]

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)[reply]

I have fallen in love[edit]

...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)[reply]

Questions and comments[edit]

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)[reply]

Category vote[edit]

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

Your comments on Polital Parties userbox page[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A Western Sahara-related vote[edit]

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

Re: User UnAmerican[edit]

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)[reply]

155.212.231.18[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

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!

--Matth e wUND^(talk) 05:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Katrina[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Re: Storm pics[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Hurricane fan again![edit]

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)[reply]

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

A Picture you might like to see[edit]

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)[reply]

Thank you for your support of my RfA[edit]

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)[reply]

pongsona image[edit]

About Image:Pongsona.gif - first of all, the source given for this image is broken. If it is actually copyrighted, I think it should be removed. Secondly, I believe (based on an anons changes and comparison of island shapes) that the storm is actually striking guam in the picture, not okinawa. — jdorje (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Oh no[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Fun[edit]

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)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I[edit]

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 Lok s hin, 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) [reply]

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)[reply]

Tropical Storm Lee[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]