User talk:Ks0stm/Archive 3

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at Koman90's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at Flj529's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at E.w.bullock's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Redsea sandstorm May13-2005.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Maedin\talk 12:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jafeluv (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Micro101 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Enjoy!--Microsoft 1000 Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 22:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 02:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rio (film). 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio (film). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio (film), I thought you might wish to revisit the article and note its improvements. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comment toward a keep. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You showed an interest in being a backup for the Signpost's WikiProject Report. One of our regular writers isn't able to do next week's article on WikiProject Olympics (to coincide with the start of the Winter Olympics in Vancouver). Would you be willing to do it? As a thank you, I could schedule you to do a project of your choice sometime in the next few weeks. -Mabeenot (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure...Is there a standard set of questions I need to ask (as I recall it is an interview style report), or something of the sort...basically is there something to start with? Also, what types of things need covered/asked? Ks0stm ^(T) 21:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a set of required questions, but some that tend to be used a lot deal with which articles make the interviewee(s) proud and how newcomers can help the project's efforts. Take a look at my most recent article or some of the articles in the WikiProject Report archive for examples. You get to decide what to ask and who to interview. You can interview just one person or multiple (the six in my article is not the norm, there were just a bunch of people at that project who wanted to say something). One thing RegentsPark and I like to do is create a user subpage to collect the interview questions. Thanks for working on this and don't hesitate to ask if you need help. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at Leonard^Bloom's talk page.
Message added 00:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered most of the questions asked. They are in your Olympics section. Chris (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I was thinking the exact same thing about the IP - but geolocate/tracert makes it look like the IP is in Cali (either DSL or potentially wireless) and the address of the guy's business appears to be in Florida... but anythings possible. I think (for now) I'm going to collapse the bulk of the discussion on Jimbo's page to avoid having people carry on two fragmented discussions. Jimbo's aware of it so no reason to invite future comments there. Regards,  7  03:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In very general, talkback is for use on editor talk pages. On article talk pages, if the editor is interested in the article, the editor will revisit. - Sinneed 20:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed only one of your interviewees has responded so far. Don't be discouraged by flaky editors. If you'd like some more interview answers to work with, try asking Parutakupiu about the images for each sport (and the project logo too) because he created them all. Here is a gallery of his work at the WikiMedia Commons. Also, Scorpion0422 and Andrwsc seem to be fairly active with the project. Keep up the good work! -Mabeenot (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be willing to answer some questions. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article still needs a major trim-down; it goes into way too much detail. Good start though. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at Parutakupiu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...for reverting vandalism to my talk page, I appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the shrubbery. It was very lovely. I have been on Wikipedia for a couple of years (same as you) and often post on the Wikipedia:New contributors' help page page; maybe you saw me there? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to you on Jimbo's discussion page. If you have more questions, I can reply here. Let's not mess up Jimbo's page. SA ru (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This'll be a great WikiProject report to go to press tomorrow, I'll get it through and it'll be a done deal! I'll give you credit. Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 23:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added my own start to it and marked it as needing copyedit, but it's pretty much done now. Ks0stm ^(T) 23:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I just got it done around 11:25 UTC. Regards, Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 23:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC) P.S. I hope we'll be partners with the Signpost again in the future. Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 23:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only logged on today and saw the request to interview me. I've added my comments, but was that too late? Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're good, I got them in and delivery hasn't started yet. Ks0stm ^(T) 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe the delivery was postponed a day, I suppose that's my fault. Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Just curious, are you really a SKYWARN spotter? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, splitting hairs here...trained spotter, yes, but I don't have my amateur radio license, so I don't know if I'm qualified as skywarn or not. Ks0stm ^(T) 18:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close enough. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Vancouver Olympics nomination again. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 04:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw. I responded. -- tariqabjotu 04:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could take up that empty space for March 1's issue of the Signpost WikiProject report in your request for WikiProject Severe Weather. It's perfect, 1 March is the start of Tornado Season, as you wished. Warm regards, Belugaboy ^{Talk to Me!} 23:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say go for it! -Mabeenot (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at JForget's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

We customarily use only municipal boundaries or census-designated place boundaries — note that the map isn't a reliable source, because "All map data supplied from record information that has not been verified". Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what to say...the county still uses those boundaries in government, etc, and I can confirm via experience that they are correct, yet with that being against OR policies..."gahh" about sums it up. What's your suggestion, given that all Saline County maps were updated with their boundaries per this graphics lab request? Ks0stm ^(T) 16:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kmusser's statement of "I notice the existing maps don't match their description either since they don't include the unincorporated communities" is incorrect: the white areas are unincorporated. The point of the map names is to show which areas are incorporated and which ones aren't, which these maps do quite well. Since we don't go by local sources for defining boundaries, there's no real way to use the local sources. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate solution would be to do like has been done with some Arizona communities (can't remember which ones right now; I'm about off to church, but I'll see if I can find you examples when I get back) by simply placing a dot at the location of the community or placing a circle with nothing inside it. Since the locations can be derived from many reliable sources and can't really be disputed, I can't imagine any reason for objecting to this solution. Nyttend (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See File:Maricopa County Incorporated and Planning areas Tonopah location.svg for an example. Nyttend (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...ok, I'll file another graphics lab request to replace the boundaries with the dots. Thanks for the suggestion! Ks0stm ^(T) 14:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Saline county can be considered a reliable source for boundaries of communities in Saline county. I know it's unusual for unicorporated communities to have definite boundaries, but it's clear that Saline county has defined some. The disclaimer on the PDFs is a generic covering their ass statement by the producers of the PDFs (Planning Works, LLC) saying that they haven't checked the data that the county gave them, it's present on every map on the Saline county website - I don't think that is reason to assume the counties data is unreliable. At any rate it's definitely not OR, they are Saline county definitions, we didn't make them up. I agree though that the descriptions are problematic as those aren't incorporation boundaries, the county refers to them as "community boundaries," they should probably be portrayed differently than communities with a corporation boundary, perhaps in a different color. If you want me to just use dots and ignore the county data entirely though I can. Kmusser (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maps such as this exist for all counties in most states, and all boundaries are either municipal or CDP; it would be quite problematic to make Saline County an aberration, since if you're familiar with such maps you'll naturally expect all polygons to be cities or CDPs. I think that the use of dots will be much more consistent with how it's done elsewhere in Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...If they were in a different color, it would tend to make them stand out as different from the incorporated areas/CDPs...however a dot would do the same thing...I don't know which would be better overall, however, since the boundaries with different color would present more information than just location (unincorporated status AND location AND boundaries), but the dot would be more familiar to people reading about other locations, at the cost of only communicating status and location. Ks0stm ^(T) 04:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because all of these maps derive all of their boundaries from the Census Bureau, the presence of clearly-defined boundaries would naturally lead to the assumption that census boundaries existed for these communities as well. Nyttend (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...well, in that event, I don't mind going with dots...although how should they appear on other city's maps? Would it just be a gray dot, or would in not be present entirely? I would prefer that they showed up on the other cities maps like they do now, though. Ks0stm ^(T) 16:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pondering further, I think the consistency argument is a good one and dots probably would be the way to go at least for the locator maps. The articles for the individual unincorporated communities could later get a second zoomed in map to show them in detail if you ever want to flesh them out. Kmusser (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed...in this event, do you think you could remake the maps with the dots? Sorry about all the rigamarole over these maps, in any case. Ks0stm ^(T) 15:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, file names are the same, they should be good to go now. Kmusser (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current article has been finished, so you're welcome to blank the interview page and use it for your upcoming article. Let me know if you need any help finding interviewees or information about the Severe Weather WikiProject. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My interviewees are being flaky again...I've left notes on at least 6 editor's talk pages and emailed User:Runningonbrains (next I'll email User:Evolauxia), but with no luck so far...I could always ask Juliancolton again; he just thought other people would be better suited than him. Any suggestions? Ks0stm ^(T) 15:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd try some more editors, always checking their "user contributions" history to make sure they've been editing within the last month. The oldest members probably started the project and will have more to say, but they're more likely to be inactive. The newest members won't have as much to say, but they should be more excited about the project. If you can get at least one editor's interview, that would be enough for the report. You'd just have to do some more writing about the project yourself. I had the same problems with the Java project. You'd think these people would be more excited about bringing publicity to something they care about... Oh well. -Mabeenot (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks reasonable. I don't see any sections missing in particular, and it looks well-referenced. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at Mabeenot's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-Mabeenot (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your contributions to the Signpost. I wonder whether you might consider varying the way you do them, perhaps not always using the question–answer alternation. Looking at the most recent one, it could easily be recast as more running editorial narrative (basically taken from the interviewee's text), with selected bits quoted. If this technique is explained beforehand to an interviewee, they will usually agree: there can be a certain amount of licence as to the precise wording of even direct quotes, as long as the interviewee approves the copy (they almost always do). Just a suggestion. Tony (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ks0stm, what format is the data in? I guess the easiest way would be to send it to my gmail at:

schmitt dot happens at gmail dot com

Thanks, TastyCakes (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at Atmoz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry. I saw your sig and was wondering if the talkback template included a header or not. I guess I pressed save instead of preview. -Atmoz (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just to let you know, I am a Recent Changes Page Patroller too and have experience nominating articles for Speedy Delete. I declined the nomination as this school is 62 years old and most likely has notability. I will work to improve it.--Morenooso (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmk, not a problem. Thanks for letting me know. Ks0stm ^(T) 07:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and you're welcome!--Morenooso (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you removed a comment of mine that I made just before. I expect you got an edit conflict. When that happens, you need to merge your edit into the one it conflicted with, not just force your edit through. Thanks! --Tango (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even notice that, but thanks for pointing it out...not quite sure how that happened. Ks0stm ^(T) 19:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Storm Prediction Center you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Storm Prediction Center for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just found National Weather Service Wichita, Kansas on WP: USG. Its a nice little article, I'm calling it a low importance stub. Keep up the good work, Awg1010 (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, no, I do not work for an Oklahoma City television station, but I am from Oklahoma. I learned that Harry Volkman broadcast the first tornado warning via a KFOR-TV special that aired around 2005, during a half-hour special that introduced their "4WARN Doppler" system. I have learned quite a bit about severe weather and weather in general over the years, which can come in handy if you happen to live in Tornado Alley. (Tvtonightokc (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, thanks for responding...be sure to check out those wikiprojects I mentioned, as well as WikiProject Oklahoma and WikiProject Television...they might be of interest to you. =) Ks0stm ^(T) 16:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at Kmusser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've converted the tables you requested at the Graphic Lab; they can be seen at my sandbox. What do you think of the result so far, are they good enough to be added to the article? Any criticism will be highly appreciated, since I have no knowledge of the subject area. Feel free to modify them as you like as well. Cheers, Quibik (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They look good, I would only suggest taking a look at the discussion of this that can be found at Talk:Storm Prediction Center/GA1, because that's where it was decided to remove the old table and insert the graphics instead. As for the tables, I'm fine with them. Ks0stm ^(T) 19:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wasn't aware that these images were added to the article as a replacement for an existing table. I took a look at the old table and would say that it's much clearer and more informative than what I've created. Is the hatching in the tables important? (are the colors+hatching a some sort of legend for weather maps?) If it's so then I'd rather use the old table (unless it has an OR issue?) and add the colors+hatching in another column as a legend. In my tables I considered color to be only a visual aid. I don't really care that much about how the issue is solved though, I'd just like to avoid using images images where text will suffice. —Quibik (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I made the text in my tables smaller. They look better to me that way. —Quibik (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not quite sure what the problem with the old table was, but yes, the colors and hatching are important, because the colors represent the risk level on the graphic and the hatching means that if there is a significant severe (hatched on the graphic) area, then it qualifies as that level, but otherwise you default down one level of risk...the new ones you've created should be good, though, because they show the colors and denote the hatching in a way, which is I think what the reviewer was wanting to clarify. I'm happy either way, and would almost prefer the new tables over anything else. Ks0stm ^(T) 17:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If you find the new tables suitable then you can add them to the article. (I said I'd do that myself, but they need to be referenced and possibly tweaked a bit further I presume, so it's probably better if you do it). I guess my part here is done, then. Good luck with the GA nomination! —Quibik (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at User talk:SoxBot/UAA/Blacklist.
Message added 19:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 19:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this discussion on [[1]] and saw that you thought that you can not provide direct links to the NCDC's information as they constantly change the links. However i have found a solution around this - You can webcite the NCDC entry itself and you should have a permanent link.Jason Rees (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I noticed, and I was going to go through List of 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak tornadoes and add a reference for each tornado using that and the source I've started with, because each event in the database has a seperate URL. The only problem I noticed is that the citation style employed by most earlier outbreaks and some more recent outbreaks isn't the "per tornado" sourcing that was mentioned at FLC...so there is an inconsistency somewhere along the road. When they mentioned that the "NCDC database" general reference wasn't "well referenced", I realized I would have to go through and cite each event individually. (Sorry if this is a bit long, rambling, or doesn't make much sense...I'm running on less sleep than I need combined with more schoolwork than usual.) Ks0stm ^(T) 03:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think many people are aware of Webcite and i think fewer people are aware that the NCDC database is perfectively fine to be webcited ([2]). IMO its a lot better to cite individually instead of the whole database, as you can then verify the information within a few seconds as opposed to someone from outside trying to find the relevant report within the NCDC Database as that can be quite tricky if you dont know what you're looking for. Also i double checked the List of Connecticut tornadoes which cites the NCDC individually.Jason Rees (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the format I'm using in the List of 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak tornadoes article work (assume that each reference was a seperate NCDC event, rather than a page on Norman Weather Service's website)? Ks0stm ^(T) 03:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that looks fine to me.Jason Rees (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might start a sandbox article in userspace later tonight. However, it does not warrant an outbreak article tonight - as there has been little or no damage from those 31 tornadoes. That being said, if the forecasts for tomorrow and this weekend verify, this will definitely warrant an article in the end. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are listed at the bottom of the day's section. It is always an NWS office site, the SPC or (after reanalysis) the NCDC. Those are the only reliable sources allowed per Project guidelines. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See what I started doing on List of 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak tornadoes as an example of what I mean...It can still be those three sites, just can we put a reference column in like I have started in that article. FYI, I will be away from the computer for a few hours, so I might not be able to respond right quickly when you reply. Ks0stm ^(T) 19:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I removed several of the earlier entries because their references no longer exist, and I could not find anything else credible for the moment. I plan to spend some time tomorrow searching Google, and if I find a reliable/official reference for any of the removed entries I'll add them back into the table. It's too bad the Iowa Environmental Mesonet NWS Product Archive I used for the 2003-2010 entries (see references) does not have Severe Weather Statements prior to 2003...that's the best source out there.

For some of the remaining older entries at the top of the table, the sources were still good but I cleared the unknown columns, like "Counties Warned" in a couple cases.

I've been maintaining the list for awhile now and I'm a perfectionist, thus the intense update project today. :) Weatherworld (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me a while to respond, by the time I got your message last night I was wiped. Anyway, I notice someone has already pointed out the Iowa Environmental Mesonet website, and that's where I normally get my information on bulletins issued. I've emailed back and forth with the maintainer of the archive, but from what I could gather with my communications with him on hurricane warnings, they haven't looked into filling out the archives with bulletins from before VTEC headers existed (around 2006 for hurricane bulletins and 2002-2003 for tornado and severe thunderstorm bulletins). Ks0stm ^(T) 20:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, IEM is my primary source as well, and thus I used the site for all of the references from 2003 to present. At least future Tornado Emergencies will be easy to throw up and reference in real-time. No new news on finding any legitimate references for the couple Tornado Emergencies I deleted. Weatherworld (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at VernoWhitney's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VernoWhitney (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at VernoWhitney's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VernoWhitney (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was not ready to create it, but it appears likely it will be warranted unless today totally busts. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly E-Mail is blocked for me too. So there is no way I can get unblocked right now unless... someone e-mails the administrator for me. That is my only option. I love me! (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! While your at it ya wanna get me some help on Meta-Wiki too? By the way, I hope you know that I am only doing this stuff becuase I am unable to do it mysef. Sorry I kinda dragged you into this. I am evidence of why you shouldn't vandalize. I love me! (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for that in fact I just got done reading it. I am very thankful for your help! At the least, i can hold my head high that I have reformed myself and that no matter what they do they'll see that I truly am regretful of my past actions. Life is about accepting responsiblility for your actions. And I have accepted responsibility for my actions. I can make a difference in this world. I wish I wouldn't have let my short-term impulse take control of me. I wish I had used logic and common sense. I love me! (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have been vandlaizing for the past month or so and I realized that all I was doing was maing a fool out of myself. Here I am a 17-year-old vandalizing and acting like a immature child. And what I was doing was pointless and stupid. I was making weird sexual jokes to people and I was being very insulting to people too. I took a look at mnyself and asked: would I feel happy if someone ever said something like that to me? I thought wow I really am being pretty bad just harassing this site. And for what? Humor? amusement? I diddn't think about the long term effects. I didn't think about my actions hurting other people. Then it hit me that I was cting bad. I have always wanted a girlfriend and I knew treating people this way was getting me no closer to that. There are a lot of factors that have changed me recently and needing to stop vandaism was a change I eeded to make for myself. I love me! (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely will! And just to let you know I edited a mainspace article! I love me! (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 13:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thegreatdr (talk · contribs) is very familiar with the nuances of the various government meteorological agencies, and could probably be able to help you. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at Disneyworld014's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at Checker Fred's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I cut it back (for now at least) to May 13, with potential further reductions to come. Not sure when to break, that needs further discussion in the article discussion. From what I could see though, it was a stalled low producing ALL the activity, which is still sitting there. However, the lack of activity except for a spurt on May 12-13 (warrants a section at Tornadoes of 2010 independently but not a separate article) precludes calling it a tornado outbreak sequence, since there was no other real outbreak. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The {{editsemiprotected}} template at User talk:Spitfire19/Sandbox was simply there as a testing page for Template:X9 Spitfire19 (Talk) 22:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So far I haven't seen any episodes! Every week people mention it to me, so I guess they are using my footage a lot. It was a long interview. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re [3]: It is decided now, would you be so kind to reinstate the appropriate {{banned}} template (albeit adjusted for the fact that he has been community-banned, not by the AC)? Thanks in advance, --78.34.233.187 (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, has been taken care of. --78.34.233.187 (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um - haven't heard back from you. Did you get my email? Write back to me some time... chzz-AT-live-DOT-co-DOT-uk

 Chzz  ►  03:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, only got a chance to reply today. Thanks for the reminder. Ks0stm ^(T) 04:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply received - for some odd reason, it was filtered as 'junk' - but I spotted it, and replied. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  11:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied/started discussion at Talk:Severe weather -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 23:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ks0stm, because you contributed to FPC's recent review, I'm letting you know that the results of the poll have been posted. We appreciate your contributions to the first stage and hope you take part in this next step, here, to move towards implementing several changes to the process. Regards, Maedin\^talk 18:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coming soon to a Wiki near you...The Third Great Wikipedia Dramaout will be July 5-9. Please join us for serious content creation! Signup is here. You have received this message because you participated in The Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout.

I see you have signed up for the last dramaout. Consider notifying 3 good editors of this to encourage more participation. Perhaps saying

I am participating in this. Please consider doing the same! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/3rd#Participating_Wikipedians 15:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at Areaseven's talk page.
Message added 09:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Ks0stm. You have new messages at Stillwaterising's talk page.
Message added 23:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Totally false there on those 58 tornadoes. Some anons have been converting unconfirmed to EF0, but there is no proof of such and they should not be listed as such - even if it means waiting until NCDC Storm Data to be released to finish the articles (probably in September for June tornadoes). CrazyC83 (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need those translations in Lakota? (I speak Dakota) oncamera^(t) 00:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the best I can do is... stormcaster; "Brings Storm, aiçamna (roots: ai, to bring; içamna, storm), A-ee-cha-mna." Beautiful Rose: "oh-jin-jin-tka (rose, in Lakota I think they say "u-zi-zi-tka") hopa (beautiful, pronounced ghoh-pah)". They might be a little iffy, but someone speaking Dakota should get it. oncamera^(t) 19:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I was of some help! Thanks for the award. :) Cheers, oncamera^(t) 06:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]