User talk:CapeVerdeWave/Archive1

I reverted your changes to 1947 Fort Lauderdale Hurricane because they directly contradict what the NHC reference says. Jdorje 22:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please convert your units to imperial and provide metric too. So don't give nautical miles or knots, convert to miles and give km alongside. Jdorje 01:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need knots in AHS articles! Give mph and km/h. — jdorje (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, CapeVerdeWave/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 02:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you mention a Sun-Sentinel article in your modifications. Would you mind providing the date and title of the article. There is also a particular way to format citations. Read all about it here WP:CITE. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 02:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the Boca Raton Airport article. Thank you. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 18:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also reverting your change to this storm (mentioning the Saintes Islands) because it is not verifiable. — jdorje (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, please include sources in things that you write. — jdorje (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also reverting your changes to this article, since what you wrote conflicts with the source that is currently cited. (However, I'm glad to see you've made some good contributions elsewhere that you have cited sources for. Keep it up.) — jdorje (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure this doesn't happen again, but don't say "Cape Verde Islands". The name of the country is Cape Verde, as you know. If I was talking about the islands of Japan, I say the Japanese islands, not Japanese Islands. --Golbez 05:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add sources for the additions you are making to the AHS articles. These articles all have terrible sources, and the longer we wait before we start adding sources the harder it will be. Adding sources to an article that doesn't have them is as hard as writing that article from scratch. So...basically all of the AHS writing we have will have to be redone. — jdorje (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Hurricane Inez from Space sma.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-Inez_radar_image_bands.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I add a copyright tag to the existing image, then? CapeVerdeWave 04:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - I've figured out how to do it and have added a tag. Thanks. CapeVerdeWave 04:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We appericate your help on getting storm images for Hurricane Bud and Tropical Storm Carlotta of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season, but I ask you if you can give out higher resolution images like 1024 X 1024 px images rather than tiny 350 X 350 px images. Alastor Moody _(talk) 01:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a gander at the previous discussion about an article on Saomai. Chacor 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to leave a note to User:Coredesat, as he's working on something here. Perhaps work with him? Chacor 17:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debris is a mass, or uncountable, noun (see the Wiktionary definition at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/debris), and therefore is grammatically singular. To say 'debris were' is ungrammatical, just as 'rice were', 'dirt were' and 'lumber were' are all ungrammatical. -- Donald Albury 14:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're working on Tropical Storm Jerry, so here's some links that might be able to help you.

• Archive of Tropical Weather Outlooks, very useful for storm history before it formed and after it dissipated
• WMO report, with some impact
• Preparations/Impact
• Damage/bit of aftermath
• Unofficial Barbados Information
• Unofficial St. Vincent Info
• Unofficial Grenada Info
• Little Trinidad and Tobago Unofficial Info
• Unofficial St. Lucia info
• Little Unofficial St. Martin Info
• Unofficial Antigua info

Hope that helps a bit. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Do you like my work on the article so far? I'm still compiling the data for the preparations and impact sections, so that's why they aren't added (complete) yet. Is the organization of the article good so far, and is the sourcing and style of writing crisp and well-organized, and is information for the introduction and storm history sections good? CapeVerdeWave 12:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it's pretty good so far. Be sure not to use nautical miles (the WPTC doesn't like using them). Remember to keep preparations in the preparations section; tropical cyclone watches and warnings are generally considered preps. Good job using the discussions, though try combining sentences and paragraphs so it doesn't look so long. Length is good sometimes, but a storm like Jerry might be good to have just three paragraphs (maybe 1 for impetus to developing as a TD, 1 for TD to peak strength, one for peak to dissipation). I'm not sure both of the images are needed at the bottom; the pic of it dissipating isn't that interesting. Good luck finishing it. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just some things: there should be no space between the last letter, or punctuation, and a <ref>. Secondly, all units should preferably have conversions (so if you do want to use nmi, it should be mi and km). Thirdly, AM and PM should, in accordance with Wikipedia style, prefarably be a.m. and p.m., and finally, all times preferably should have a UTC equivalent. BTW, "EST" should be "AST" or "EDT" in that article, because it occurred during daylight savings. Hope these little things help in writing a great article. – Chacor 01:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're aware of it or if you intentionally did this, but all of your edits are marked as minor edits. Minor edits are generally only small edits such as spelling fixes or other small fixes. Most of your recent edits have added content to articles, which isn't minor. I just wanted to bring this to your attention. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Thanks for clarification. I was curious about that myself. CapeVerdeWave 13:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you can change it in your preferences. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. when using {{clear}}, could you please use "{{subst:clear}}" rather than just "{{clear}}"? See WP:SUBST. Thanks. – Chacor 03:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that with the system still sitting there and there being a chance of regenerating, the nomination should be withdrawn and this should be returned to Current-class. After all we are still adding to the storm history (which is normally the most stable part of the article after a storm goes away)...after it is clearly dead it should immediately return to GAC as it should pass immediately. CrazyC83 19:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there CVW, I notice you don't use edit summaries when you edit. Edit summaries helps people (for example, vandal-patrollers) tell the content of the edit without having to check the diff link for the exact changes. While it isn't a foolproof method and people do abuse it, it helps to include edit summaries. You can set an option in your preferences (editing tab) to remind you if you didn't include an edit summary. Cheers, – Chacor 10:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good luck with such a list. OK, first I fixed the problem with the ref. I'm a little busy with other projects, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to help edit the article, but I can give some pointers. First is how to list every known Bahamanian tropical cyclone. The NHC deadliest hurricanes and possibly deadliest hurricane lists have some early storms (under header Bahamas or BAH). From 1800 to 1850, this site lists tropical cyclone impacts in the United States, but occasionally they mention Bahama storms. Here is a link for a listing of storms from 1700 to 1855, with some Bahamanian storms possibly mentioned. Be sure to look through hurricane climatology for U.S. states; some are mentioned here. For storms from 1851 to 1914, check out the Raw Data from Hurdat, as some observations from the Bahamas are listed there (example). Similarly, the Meta Data provides some info. By that point, the Monthly Weather Review becomes useful, so be sure to use the archive search.

If you don't mind me asking, do you plan on having all of the storms in one article? Writing a list article is a big undertaking, but it's very rewarding once you finish it. One thing I'd like to mention is that there is no time line. I wrote the List of Florida hurricanes series over a period of about a year. Again, good luck with it, and feel free to ask me for any more questions. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Hurricane_Jeanne_(1980) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my stalking, but just a little heads up; this source says $5.5 million in damage and 5 deaths from the hurricane. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I did some research, and according to HURDAT, the hurricane was still offshore at 0600 UTC on September 17th. Seen here. Just curious, do you have a source saying it made landfall with winds of 130 kts? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the reference for that statement is invalid. I contacted the author of the article to see if it could be cleared up. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sourcing the article. Sorry to be annoying, but could you tell me the page where it says it hit Florida with winds of 150 mph? On page 5, it says winds were estimated up to 160 mph, but that's not helpful since it's an estimate and it goes against with our thinking that it was a Cat. 4 at landfall (which is supported by HURDAT, as the hurricane is listed as causing Cat. 4 winds in Florida). I'm also a little leery at citing the MWR, given that it was almost 80 years ago. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just went through some NHC links, but none say anything more than Cat. 4 landfall on Florida. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bit of a qualm using it, since it wasn't approved by the NHC for inclusion. Additionally, the source says the Okeechobee hurricane did not attain Category 5 status, which would be quite a change. I suppose I'll stop my complaining, since the table is bound to change, regardless, due to the eventual updating of HURDAT. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Spygate incident (American football), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spygate incident (American football) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Spygate, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spygate and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to mention that 2 minutes before you made your afd comment someone wiped out all the Jets info that you just refered to. I'm not going to touch it because I just have no need to be accused of being a pats fan suck-up today. Just thought you might be interested if you hadn't already noticed.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, finishing the set of articles on Cat. 5 Atlantic hurricanes! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I got sidetracked for a sec, but I'm getting Easy. Both are potential GA nominees, but I'd do a bit more work on them first. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the ledes should be shorter, and I'd like integration of the quotes (which aren't really quote-worthy, but still important nonetheless). Could you respond on the talk pages and specify what you did? All in all, they're getting close. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're close to GA status, and with a few last improvements they should pass. That said, the GA nomination will probably take a few weeks, given the backlog, so you could nom them now and improve them while waiting. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added some stuff to my page. Thanks, I appreciate the help. I must warn you that if you're going to do that, watch out for flow. Keep the topics kind of in line with each other. For example, I wouldn't want to put a sentence on regional winds in between two sentences on storm surge damage. I'd want to put it just after the regional introduction like so: "Hurricane Eric struck North Carolina with tremendous force. Winds were clocked over 100 mph 25 miles inland." This is what you want to avoid: "A massive 20 foot storm surge devastated the coast. Winds were clocked over 100 mph 25 miles inland. The surge destroyed hundreds of homes..." And make sure if you use exact measurements like 25 miles inland, make sure you have a source that says that and it's not just embelishment. Just a bit of advice. Also, I usually don't use artistic language so much emphatic adjectives. Try to avoid leaving states in pain ;) I liked your Hazel addition better. Do you have a source to back it up? How far inland were those winds felt? Does it say? -- §HurricaneERICarchive 23:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, I'm pretty convinced Floyd was a 5. It had a pressure lower than Andrew and the overall organization at peak intensity seemed better than even Emily or Felix. Yeah, I have been known to spice up essays a little. I'm a fiction writer by trade, so I've kind of familiarized myself with that kind of writing. When I use artistic license in a piece like this, I try to use it very carefully. Little tastes here and there. The Opal thing was just description. "Inhaled" has been used for entities that draw in input and expel output, like tropical cyclones. Andrew was my most blatant usage. I felt like something extra was needed to describe the storm's path toward Florida. I like your additions to the 1926 storm a lot. The state's most vulnerable playground is awesome! When I read it, I had one of those "why didn't I think of that?" moments. It's also perfectly placed (I'll have to move the Floyd comparison, but I'll definately keep it). Impressive stat about the 1944 storm. 120 mph sustained winds for 2 hours!! God! -- §HurricaneERICarchive 01:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment, and my eyes are glued to the archive for the next few hours. I have two things to say. 1) Sweet! and 2) About time! Thanks for being the bearer of good news. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, unfortunately, I don't have the track map generator, and even worse, I'm a little occupied for the next 4 hours. But tonight, I'll be sure to update the articles, and I'll ask someone who has the track map generator to do those. I'll also take care of uploading those maps, tonight. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the incessant reminders :) I just did 1915, and I'll finish the rest. Thanks for uploading those maps. Given that you're apparently online right now, could you ask User:Ajm81 if he could update the track maps? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Once they're finished, I think I'll also request for tropical depression maps. TD's are tropical cyclones, after all, and HURDAT does give their positions. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was in a hurry, and just wanted to quickly bump that up to B status (since I was updating the article stats table). I didn't have time for a GA review, nor do I right now, but it looks pretty good. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article 2008 February Florida tornado outbreak, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of 2008 February Florida tornado outbreak. RunningOnBrains 09:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, you should really move your sandbox articles, rather than copying and pasting. Copying and pasting is a GFDL violation if another user edited it, and I just find it easier to always move it. That way, it preserves the edit history. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Charlie 51, I'd rather let another user review it. I originally created the article, so to avoid any COI (as well as avoid the review in general, which I usually dread since it's easier to see the problems in an article than to see if it is actually good). Regarding the anon edits, there's no way I can do anything with that, unfortunately, as reverting it would retain the edit history. However, an admin would be able to delete those edits, if you let them know that you don't want your IP address available. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the IP edits:  Done Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thegreatdr 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Whoops, thanks for catching those errors. Implementing the new template is a bit tedious. :) --Coredesat 06:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, make sure to add the years on the formed and dissipated dates, this was an oversight of mine when I started introducing the template. --Coredesat 06:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1917 Pinar del Río hurricane, 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.

--Victuallers (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you did quite a change to it today ;) Do you plan on leaving that as it is, or will it be worked on in the future? I was just curious. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold is a good option, then, as I agree: the article in its previous form was useless. It could be replaced with a few articles (Central America, Cuba, Jamaica, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, and Lesser Antilles), though obviously they'd have to be split up. Seeing as no one ever edited that page, I don't think anyone will miss it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I've got like 5,000 windows open on my internet browser, and I'm working on the storm history for Vamei right now. I'm not sure what else you plan on doing, but I found a ton of sources I'll be adding shortly. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only tweaked the wording. The previous statement also acknowledged the re-analysis change, and previously the wording implied that the 1916 season only had one major hurricane prior to August. As Hurricane #3 was upped to major in re-analysis, the implication was removed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, I just realized that I removed a semi-important fact. I added that fact back in, but I put it in the lede. Yea, I'll give Emilia a look. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]