User talk:Plasticup/Archive 2
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Plasticup, hi! Thank you for your message on my talk page here. I am happy to alter Image:Area preparations for Hurricane Dean August 19 2007.png to include Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Tabasco and Campeche, but I will need sources that state they did undergo preparations before Dean struck and sources for the date on which those preparations started. If those states did not in fact undergo preparations but were caught unprepared, then what you are asking for is a map of affected areas. It's equally easy (well, having to fill in all the islands is time-consuming but no real problem) for me to do a map of either, but either way I will need sources.
Incidentally, if you really want to go to town, then if you could give me sources for each prepared area and the dates they were prepared on, then I could do you a nice choropleth with each area colorcoded depending on when they prepared. If you mean affected instead of prepared, then same difference, but either way, sources are required.
On an associated note, thank you for taking the time to polish the hurricane articles: I know the effort required to bring a suite of articles up to a given standard, so congrats on your diligence.
Hope that helps, regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #19
You were selected as the Member of the Month in the July issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter. Congratulations! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The Hurricane Herald
This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The Hurricane Herald aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global tropical cyclone activity. If you wish to change how you receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. This newsletter covers all of July 2008.
Please visit this page and bookmark any suggestions of interest to you. This will help improve monitoring of the WikiProject's articles.
Storm of the month
Hurricane Bertha was a rare early season Cape Verde-type hurricane and the easternmost forming July tropical storm on record. Bertha became the longest-lived pre-August Atlantic tropical cyclone on record and the longest-lived tropical cyclone in the Atlantic Basin since Ivan in 2004. The second named storm of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season, Bertha developed from a tropical wave that emerged off the coast of Africa on July 1. After initially remaining weak while tracking westward, Bertha began to strengthen on July 6, and the next day it quickly intensified to reach peak winds of 120 mph (195 km/h). The hurricane weakened during the day on July 8, and after turning to a northwest drift, it passed within 40 miles (64 km) of Bermuda on July 14 before moving northeast away from the island. Bertha became extratropical on July 20 to the east of Newfoundland, after causing minimal damage and three indirect drowning deaths.
Other tropical cyclone activity
- Northwestern Pacific Ocean – After several weeks of no activity, Typhoon Kalmaegi developed in the middle of the month, passing near northern Luzon before turning to the north and making landfalls on Taiwan and China; the typhoon caused heavy crop damage and 18 deaths. Later in the month, Typhoon Fung-Wong caused further flooding in Taiwan and China. In addition to the two named typhoons, PAGASA issued advisories on Tropical Depression Gener early in the month.
- Eastern Pacific Ocean – Four named storms developed in the basin during the month, of which three became hurricanes; Hurricanes Elida, Fausto, and Genevieve, as well as Tropical Storm Douglas, all remained offshore, though in the middle of the month a tropical depression brought rainfall to Mexico after hitting near Lázaro Cárdenas, Michoacán. Hurricane Boris and Tropical Storm Cristina continued from the previous month.
- Atlantic Ocean– In addition to Hurricane Bertha, two other tropical cyclones developed in the month. Tropical Storm Cristobal formed off the coast of Florida, bringing rainfall and gusty winds to coastal North Carolina and later Nova Scotia. The most damaging Atlantic tropical cyclone during the month was Hurricane Dolly, which formed on July 20 in the western Caribbean Sea. After tracking northwestward through the Gulf of Mexico, it reached peak winds of 100 mph (155 km/h) before moving ashore on South Padre Island, Texas. The hurricane caused flash flooding from heavy rainfall, with damage in the United States estimated at $1.2 billion; across its path Dolly caused 21 deaths, including 17 from landslides in Guademala, as well as two indirect fatalities.
Member of the month
The July member of the month is User:Plasticup. Joining the project in August of 2007, Plasticup first became an asset in working on the active article series on Hurricane Dean. After a period of inactivity, the user returned to produce two featured articles this month, both interesting meteorological histories. Additionally, Plasticup has focused some attention to articles in the 2005 season. Keep up the good work!
New members
New and improved articles
- There were five new pieces of Featured content : 1998 Pacific hurricane season (FT), Tropical Storm Chantal (2001), Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean, 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, and Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon (1994)
- New Good articles include: Atlantic tropical cyclone, Cyclone Bola, Maximum sustained wind, Hurricane Henriette (2007)
- New storm articles include: Great Barbados hurricane, 2002 Oman cyclone, Tropical Storm Kiko (2007)
- New non-storm articles include: Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne, Maximum potential intensity
Main Page content
- Typhoon Paka appeared as Today's Featured Article on July 5
- Typhoon Kalmaegi and Hurricane Dolly appeared in the In the news column during the month
- Entries from 2 articles: Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon (1994) and 1891 Martinique hurricane, appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know column during July.
Storm article statistics </noinclude>
| Grade | Apr | May | Jun | Jul |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 FA
|
40 | 41 | 41 | 42 |
 A
|
8 | 17 | 18 | 18 |
 GA
|
131 | 129 | 135 | 139 |
| B | 103 | 101 | 96 | 15 |
| C | 0 | 0 | 3 | 98 |
| Start | 208 | 209 | 208 | 202 |
| Stub | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 |
| Total | 499 | 506 | 510 | 524 |
| ω | 2.92 | 2.88 | 2.87 | 2.94 |
| percentage ≥Less than C |
43.5 | 43.1 | 42.5 | 40.5 |
| percentage ≥GA or better |
35.9 | 37.0 | 38.0 | 38.0 |
Project News
During July, there were two large changes to the operations of the WikiProject. First, WPTC adopted and helped develop the WP 1.0 B-Class criteria, and was among the first projects to use a "forced" B-Class rubric as part of their assessment schemes. This means that all the articles tagged with {{hurricane|class=B|...}} are automatically reassessed as {{C-Class}}, unless all the values in the checklist are marked as passed. In other words, to mark an article as B-Class, the banner needs to be changed to
{{hurricane |class=B |B1=yes |B2=yes |B3=yes |B4=yes |B5=yes |B6=yes | ... }}
B1, B2, B3, B4, B5 and B6 stand for each of the six points in the WikiProject's rubric. The banner also has the capability to mark why an article doesn't meet the new B-Class standards: Typing the following in an article's talk page
{{hurricane |class=B |B1=no |B2=yes |B3=yes |B4=yes |B5=yes |B6=yes | ... }}
will assess an article as C-Class, and mark that the article is not a B because of bad references.
Articles assessed as B's before the introduction of the forced checklist were automatically reassessed as C's, but they're awaiting new reviews to check if they still meet the new B criteria. These articles are listed on Category:Tropical cyclone articles with incomplete B-Class checklists. Currently, there's 117 articles in the category—let's try to shrink that number to zero before the next edition of the Herald!
The other major change to the WikiProject was the addition of three task forces: the storm articles task force, season articles task force, and the tropical meteorology articles task force. These three task forces allow WPTC to see the progress of the different areas of the WikiProject. Currently, all 1,076 WPTC articles have been assigned to one of the three task forces, but any unsorted articles will be placed in Category:Unsorted tropical cyclone articles as they're tagged with {{hurricane}}.
In order to categorize an article, the banner needs to be modified from {{hurricane|...}} to:
{{hurricane |storms-task-force=yes | ... }}
{{hurricane |seasons-task-force=yes | ... }}
{{hurricane |meteo-task-force=yes | ... }}
which will sort the pages into the storms, seasons, and tropical meteorology task forces, respectively.
Your recent bot approvals request has been denied. Please see the request page for details. – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Frivolous edits with AWB
I also wanted to call to your attention to an item in the Rules of use for AWB that caution to:
Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists.
(Emphasis as in the original.) Your edits of numerous aviation articles would certainly seem to fit the exact type of edit AWB users are to avoid. Please watch use of it to avoid edits like this in the future. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC).
- I disagree. The edits that I am making are bringing articles into line with the first element of the Manual of Style. These are edits that are often recommended in Peer Reviews; they are important and appreciably affect the articles' readability. In my mind that is the opposite of frivolous. Plasticup T/C 04:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- It clogs the works. These edits amount to very little and the articles they affect are in no way near FA, GA status. Can't you find something more productive to do with your time, like making content contributions? FWiW, take this in the spirit it is given, but style "warriors" take up too much time and energy, don't become one. Bzuk (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC).
- I don't visit wikipedia to have my contributions belittled by you or anyone else. I am adding value, and that is what this whole collaborative encyclopedia is about. You do your bit and I'll do mine. Plasticup T/C 04:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Just to be sure we are on the same page, you may even be technically adding "value" but it is entirely unnecessary as the articles in question are in development and nowhere hear being appraised for GA, FA or other classifications. As well, what you add actually makes editing more difficult. You have changed a large group of articles that immediately triggers red flags. Other editors then have to review the changes like I just did, to find very little benefit from the changes. Working through AWB is also problematic unless there is a real need. Recently administrators have made this a concern with the usual comments that, "user has been asked not to make trivial whitespace alterations, may be valuable changes, but impossible to assess in sea of valueless ones." This seems to be the case with your AWB campaign. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC).
- Who decides which articles deserve which levels of craftsmanship? Fluid prose is also a FAC requirement. Shall we abolish grammar until an article approaches FA-status? I know I am taking your argument to the logical extreme, but it just doesn't hold water. Shouldn't our goal be to improve every article as much as possible? And I am sorry if you feel that my edits are a waste of your time. I provided a "minor" tag and clear edit summary to save you the trouble. Plasticup T/C 04:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- I reverted all of your non-breaking space changes to Montague Bikes. All but one non-breaking space were within a wikitable and therefore not subject to line breaks as might be expected in a long sentence. The first non-breaking space you added was in a string like this: $695.00 USD where the better edit would have been to make it read US$695.00, which is what I did. You might want to slow down and keep instances like this in mind. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- You may notice that other editors also have concerns when widescale changes are made with AWB. The introduction of the non-breaking spaces symbol at an early level, makes it excruciatingly difficult to edit around. I accept that when articles proceed to a standard that requires either a review or standard status, that the non-breaking spaces can be introduced and are sometimes but not always preferred by expert reviewers. BTW, the MoS guide says "recommended" not mandated, so there are probably a gazillion articles for you to go through that the original authors chose not to use the style of non-breaking spaces. FWiW, I am not belittling your work, merely having real reservations as to its perceived value to the project. While you may see this as useful work, it is not considered such by many admins and editors. Perhaps more discussion and discourse at project levels should have been your first recourse before embarking on a campaign. Bzuk (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC).
- "Can't you find something more productive to do with your time, like making content contributions?" sounds a little disparaging. Perhaps it is the lack of extratextual clues. Maybe you actually meant for me to write two featured articles in 30 days and submit a further FAC and a FLC concurrently. Either way it hardly feels like fostering a spirit of collaboration. But that's okay, I'll just go back to twiddling my thumbs while the FA reviewers get back to me. Goodnight. Plasticup T/C 05:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- You may notice that other editors also have concerns when widescale changes are made with AWB. The introduction of the non-breaking spaces symbol at an early level, makes it excruciatingly difficult to edit around. I accept that when articles proceed to a standard that requires either a review or standard status, that the non-breaking spaces can be introduced and are sometimes but not always preferred by expert reviewers. BTW, the MoS guide says "recommended" not mandated, so there are probably a gazillion articles for you to go through that the original authors chose not to use the style of non-breaking spaces. FWiW, I am not belittling your work, merely having real reservations as to its perceived value to the project. While you may see this as useful work, it is not considered such by many admins and editors. Perhaps more discussion and discourse at project levels should have been your first recourse before embarking on a campaign. Bzuk (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC).
- I reverted all of your non-breaking space changes to Montague Bikes. All but one non-breaking space were within a wikitable and therefore not subject to line breaks as might be expected in a long sentence. The first non-breaking space you added was in a string like this: $695.00 USD where the better edit would have been to make it read US$695.00, which is what I did. You might want to slow down and keep instances like this in mind. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Who decides which articles deserve which levels of craftsmanship? Fluid prose is also a FAC requirement. Shall we abolish grammar until an article approaches FA-status? I know I am taking your argument to the logical extreme, but it just doesn't hold water. Shouldn't our goal be to improve every article as much as possible? And I am sorry if you feel that my edits are a waste of your time. I provided a "minor" tag and clear edit summary to save you the trouble. Plasticup T/C 04:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Just to be sure we are on the same page, you may even be technically adding "value" but it is entirely unnecessary as the articles in question are in development and nowhere hear being appraised for GA, FA or other classifications. As well, what you add actually makes editing more difficult. You have changed a large group of articles that immediately triggers red flags. Other editors then have to review the changes like I just did, to find very little benefit from the changes. Working through AWB is also problematic unless there is a real need. Recently administrators have made this a concern with the usual comments that, "user has been asked not to make trivial whitespace alterations, may be valuable changes, but impossible to assess in sea of valueless ones." This seems to be the case with your AWB campaign. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC).
- I don't visit wikipedia to have my contributions belittled by you or anyone else. I am adding value, and that is what this whole collaborative encyclopedia is about. You do your bit and I'll do mine. Plasticup T/C 04:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- It clogs the works. These edits amount to very little and the articles they affect are in no way near FA, GA status. Can't you find something more productive to do with your time, like making content contributions? FWiW, take this in the spirit it is given, but style "warriors" take up too much time and energy, don't become one. Bzuk (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC).
Hurricane FLCs
Sure, I'd encourage wikiproject input. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Watch out for exceptions
Hallo, Plasticbot got it wrong here by "correcting" deliberately incorrect spellings. Worth looking out for examples like that - I regularly clean up "should of" etc, but I watch out for when it's in a quote or album title etc so needs to be left alone! PamD (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- It was supposed to only run in the mainspace where that wouldn't be a problem but a couple of non-mainspaces pages slipped into the list. I have stopped the bot while I figure out how and why—the safe money is on good ol' fashioned user error. Plasticup T/C 10:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: SS FAC
Thanks for the follow up. Everything was fine with how you fixed my concerns. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| I award you this barnstar for two things. First for producing a seemingly endless stream of quality content, including two pieces of featured content in one day! And second for being bold enough to FAC 2005 Azores subtropical storm, an article which I never thought would reach GA given it's former length. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC) |
- Nope, NHC is down for me too. I suspect the website just can't handle the mass amounts of hits, especially because this is the first real storm to threaten Florida since 2005. What's worse, I can't even get to the advisories! –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I am reviewing your article for GA status. Of course I think it is a very good, well-written article and have mentioned only a few things on the comment page. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll get to it as soon as I can. After weeks (months?) of silence from WP:GAN I have had 3 articles go "On Hold" today. It is very exciting but I hope that the reviewers can be patient with me as I sort through all of their suggestions. Thanks for starting this review, and I look forward to completing it as soon as humanly possible. Plasticup T/C 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
GA Review of Tropical Storm Alpha (2005)
Hi! I have completed the GA review of Tropical Storm Alpha (2005), with the full review located at Talk:Tropical Storm Alpha (2005)/GA1. There are just a few minor concerns that I would like you to address before I pass the article. I have put the article on hold for seven days in order to give you time to do this. If you have questions, you can ask them on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Wiki brah
ToneDef Dancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of banned user Wiki brah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) who adds malicious misinformation to FLa related articles. Please do not re-revert the removal of his "contributions". – iridescent 22:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Kurt
Wrt this comment: Please see my stance on the issue and try to understand why I think that your comment is not a good idea. Believe me when I say that I can totally relate and fully agree in spirit with your comment. But it isn't directly related to the discussion at hand and therefore shouldn't be posted to the RfA page. user:Everyme 19:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what those diffs are showing. Are you saying that you have asked my question on a talk page somewhere? I understand your argument that a specific RfA isn't the place for a discussion on the RfA process, but we are meant to discuss the oppositions that users raise. The goal is, ostensibly, to build consensus and that will never happen without discussion. Perhaps I am foolish to ignore the reality that RfA is no more than a vote these days, but I don't see the harm in having some discussion. Plasticup T/C 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Your comment is not discussing Kurt's oppose in the specific context of that RfA, and that's what renders it unrelated meta-commentary which (while, again, highly agreeable imho) does not belong on the RfA page. I've stepped up efforts to distinguish between "legitimate" comments which focus on the discussion at hand from unrelated meta-commentary after my own comments have been moved to RfA talk pages along with such unrelated meta-discussion. The threshold is very simply: Does a comment have direct relation to the discussion at hand or not. Otherwise, someone will inevitably once again move all comments made in response to Kurt's oppose to the talk page. I do not intend to let that happen, seeing as I have made an effort to keep my own comment focused on that specific RfA discussion. user:Everyme 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Kurt Weber's "oppose" isn't made in the specific context of this RfA—he posts the exact same text in every self-nom—so how am I supposed to respond in the specific context? You are asking the impossible. Furthermore, isn't Kurt Weber's "vote" (being directed at the general case of self-noms) equally deserving of a move off the RfA page? Plasticup T/C 19:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Bro, that's absolutely a point at which I have been for quite some time now, and one which I have vigorously argued for and attempted to defend against admins and other idiots who have no idea what either consensus or an actual discussion is, namely more than a mere exchange of opinions and esp. meta-opinions like Kurt's (comments like "It's my/his/her opinion, leave me/him/her alone" deserves a bullet in the head of such morons, to put it bluntly). The point is, it doesn't matter either way — as far as Kurt himself is concerned. The community has decided to indulge/humour him, and he just continues with it (one might argue that he has to at this point). My sole concern nowadays is that relatively inexperienced users may think that his comments carry any merit and that the mild disruption arising from his opposes may gain traction and turn into a source of major disruption. This could happen in two ways: Either when there are no comments at all that respond to the specific invalidness of an oppose of his in a specific RfA, or when there are comments that can be construed as badgering him in any way. That's why I comment iff there is an obvious gap in his reasoning as pertains to a particular RfA. You see, I just try my best to treat his comments as if it was the only such oppose he had ever made, simply because addressing the overarching issue either with him directly or with the community at large seems impossible. The idea to "excise" unrelated comments so as to preserve the valid ones was born in this AN discussion. user:Everyme 19:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand that resolution of that AN thread. One minute you are ticking along nice and firm, the next everyone agrees to let Kurt disrupt RfAs. That is the consensus, right? That Kurt can continue to disrupt every self-nom will the same canned comment? Plasticup T/C 20:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, when I posted there at AN, I didn't even bother to address the issue of Kurt's opposes since I already knew from many earlier discussions that some (read: too many) value "freedom of speech" more than quality of discussion. So instead, I made it clear that the issue was more the routine moving of all responses to the talk page of an RfA as soon as there are "too many" and I tried to highlight the double standard of allowing Kurt comment any way he sees fit but to remove all other comments as "disruptive". The only bright line that makes sense, as I tried to point out at AN and above, is to evaluate comments strictly by their relevance for the RfA. Of course that should ideally apply to Kurt as well, but that point is moot because of all his self-appointed self-styled "free-speech-defenders" (who interestingly never had any problem with silencing and curtailing other users' "right to free speech"). So the only thing that's left is for us to hold up the quality of discussion as best we can and not stoop to Kurt's level by commenting in a way that bears no relevance for a particular discussion. Let's be better than Kurt and inspire others to do the same — not by explicitly stating the obvious (that his comments are ridiculous and disruptive) but by illustrating the same thing by setting a positive example of proper participation in discussion. At least, that's the best I can think of right now. user:Everyme 20:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand that resolution of that AN thread. One minute you are ticking along nice and firm, the next everyone agrees to let Kurt disrupt RfAs. That is the consensus, right? That Kurt can continue to disrupt every self-nom will the same canned comment? Plasticup T/C 20:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Bro, that's absolutely a point at which I have been for quite some time now, and one which I have vigorously argued for and attempted to defend against admins and other idiots who have no idea what either consensus or an actual discussion is, namely more than a mere exchange of opinions and esp. meta-opinions like Kurt's (comments like "It's my/his/her opinion, leave me/him/her alone" deserves a bullet in the head of such morons, to put it bluntly). The point is, it doesn't matter either way — as far as Kurt himself is concerned. The community has decided to indulge/humour him, and he just continues with it (one might argue that he has to at this point). My sole concern nowadays is that relatively inexperienced users may think that his comments carry any merit and that the mild disruption arising from his opposes may gain traction and turn into a source of major disruption. This could happen in two ways: Either when there are no comments at all that respond to the specific invalidness of an oppose of his in a specific RfA, or when there are comments that can be construed as badgering him in any way. That's why I comment iff there is an obvious gap in his reasoning as pertains to a particular RfA. You see, I just try my best to treat his comments as if it was the only such oppose he had ever made, simply because addressing the overarching issue either with him directly or with the community at large seems impossible. The idea to "excise" unrelated comments so as to preserve the valid ones was born in this AN discussion. user:Everyme 19:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Kurt Weber's "oppose" isn't made in the specific context of this RfA—he posts the exact same text in every self-nom—so how am I supposed to respond in the specific context? You are asking the impossible. Furthermore, isn't Kurt Weber's "vote" (being directed at the general case of self-noms) equally deserving of a move off the RfA page? Plasticup T/C 19:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Your comment is not discussing Kurt's oppose in the specific context of that RfA, and that's what renders it unrelated meta-commentary which (while, again, highly agreeable imho) does not belong on the RfA page. I've stepped up efforts to distinguish between "legitimate" comments which focus on the discussion at hand from unrelated meta-commentary after my own comments have been moved to RfA talk pages along with such unrelated meta-discussion. The threshold is very simply: Does a comment have direct relation to the discussion at hand or not. Otherwise, someone will inevitably once again move all comments made in response to Kurt's oppose to the talk page. I do not intend to let that happen, seeing as I have made an effort to keep my own comment focused on that specific RfA discussion. user:Everyme 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Question about TS Fay gif
Hi, I'm wondering what you used to create the gif from the satellite animation for Fay. Could you tell me what you used to create it? I would possibly use it for similar purposes on Wikipedia. Thanks. Hello32020 (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sure there are better ways—my technique was low-tech in the extreme. I took screenshots of the Infrared loop off this site and cropped out the piece I wanted. Then I used Adobe Fireworks to splice them together into an animated .gif. Plasticup T/C 22:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: Timeline of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season
Thanks, and thanks for the note. I hadn't even noticed it was promoted. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- A quick unrelated question. Are you planning on working on the Hurricane Felix article? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- You mean because it was so similar to Hurricane Dean? I thought about it, but I want to get back working on the 2005 hurricane season. Plasticup T/C 02:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Somewhat. I just wanted to know before I started working at it myself. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- You mean because it was so similar to Hurricane Dean? I thought about it, but I want to get back working on the 2005 hurricane season. Plasticup T/C 02:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject
Hello, I was wondering how I might be able to join the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject. If you have any information please contact me on my user page. I am very interested in tropical cyclones and would love to lend a helping hand. Thanks! (Hurricaneguy (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC))
Burger King legal issues
Hi,
I was just wondering, did I resolve all of the issues you raised in the FAC? could you please respond at the peer review I set up.
Thank you for your time,
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think you did, as much as possible. I don't have the time to give the article a full peer review, but best of luck with the next FAC. For long articles like that it is always a long process, but I am confident that you will get there eventually. Plasticup T/C 01:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
ITN
|
On 29 August, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Hurricane Gustav (2008), which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page. |