User talk:E. Brown/Archive 2

HURRICANE ERIC ADVISORY ARCHIVE 2

---

This is an archive page, DO NOT edit!

---

Adminship

I think you've done a very good job on many of the past hurricane seasons. I've nominated you for adminship, so please do accept (or decline, if you feel like it)... -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 06:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

When will your name show up so I can support the nomination? --Holderca1 23:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Your talk page signature

I notice you sign your talk page Squawk Box. This is not a piss take of my name, I apprecuiate, but it sure looks like it all the same. Please can you change it. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please. Unfortunately it was once used as a piss take. If it was your user name I would either live with it or take it to request for comment, but as it is not your user name it would be best for the sake of clarity to change it. I am aware you weren't aware of me but lots of wikipedians are, and it justr seemed a little strange. So if you could change it it would be really appreciated, SqueakBox 21:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Whatever our disagreements I do appreciate this, SqueakBox 00:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oct 17 edits

Thanks for clearing it up and I posted a short explanation on the hurricane season talk page as well. Looks like a misunderstanding, so no hard feelings either way I hope. And now, back to your irregularly scheduled rapidly-intensifying super hurricane... The Great Zo 00:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yup, I meant Wilma. That's all :) The Great Zo 04:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Admin

Adminship can be a bit daunting. I made sure to read up on all the duties and abilities before I self-nommed, back when self-nomming was separate. You've been here long enough and have enough edits to get considered.

The additional abilities a sysop has over a normal user are: Quick rollback link, to easily fix vandalism; the ability to delete pages; the ability to see the contents of deleted pages; the ability to protect and unprotect pages; the ability to edit protected pages; and the ability to block people.

Admins (aka sysops) are also allowed/perhaps expected sometimes to manage procedure pages; as in, closing AfD debates, monitoring the Candidates for Speedy Deletion, engaging on the Admin Noticeboard, but none of these are required. I was very slow at first; it takes time to learn just what the rollback link does, and when to use it. (It reverts all of the last edits by that person; that is, if a vandal made 3 edits in a row and you hit rollback, it rolls back to the last version not by him) Also, blocking is a powerful ability that should be used sparingly. At first. I would probably rank among the more prolific blockers. :P

Basically, some think it's a big deal, some think it's nothing to worry about. Treat it in the middle. It's kind of a validation from the community as well. I say go for it, once you've read up. If you have any more questions, let me know. :) --Golbez 18:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, E. More about adminship. While your RFA is passing right now, there have been complaints that you're not active enough in the "administrative" areas of Wikipedia to have the mop. While I do not think this is true, I recommend that in the future (as soon as possible) you get involved with other things outside of the hurricane articles. You're already well-known and respected there. :) I suggest that you go to AFD and other deletion areas to get a grasp of the deletion policy. I also suggest that you do more Recent Changes patrolling (the Counter Vandalism Unit is a good place to get ideas and coordinate efforts). The other area that concerns most editors is the contributions to the article namespace, but you've done more most admin candidates have done there (including myself), and no one will complain about them. Overall, I think you've got what it takes to be an admin. So, maybe after the hurricane season ends, you can start picking up other duties, ok? Ask me any questions you may have on your talk page. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Around an 80% positive is required. So if someone gets 10 negative votes, they need at least 40 positive votes to even have a chance, and that's not going to be easy. And yes, it's definitely possible to be renominated or renom yourself, just give it some time and ponder the suggestions they made. :) --Golbez 01:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Can Al-Zubair ibn Abd al-Muttalib stay

Hi, I've modified AFD:Al-Zubair with facts and references. It would be nice if you can spare some time to read it, and hopefully to reconsider its deletion (or make some comments on my talk page). -- Goldie (tell me) 22:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I decided to drop a note to people who casted their (negative) vote before the update of the article. Do you think it was worth the effort? -- Goldie (tell me) 00:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Season Track Maps

Check out [1] and [2]. Jdorje 01:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I finished it up. It's not that hard to upload stuff in batch mode; after downloading all the files it only takes a few seconds to upload each one. BTW, I noticed at the end you'd already uploaded a 1930 chart; I marked this for deletion (not sure what else to do?) since it's a duplicate; it's a GIF not a PNG image and comes from a (slightly) different source. Jdorje 06:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded new versions of the 95-04 season maps. None of the old ones were PNGs, or had the same filename. And as for "batch mode", I just mean doing them all at once rather than uploading them piecemeal as they're needed. Jdorje 16:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh heh...no, not all in one click. First of all, I downloaded them all, converted them from jpg to png, and renamed them - all using a script. Then I figured out the fastest way to upload them (using a template for the description text). Then I uploaded them in groups of 10, opening the "upload file" link in a new tab 10 times and then going through and pasting in the filename and text. Uploading the last 75 of them (1930-2004) took less than 30 minutes...so I guess that's still about 25 seconds per file. I had to wait sometimes because once 10 files were uploading they took a while to complete, so I watched some television at the same time ;-). Jdorje 16:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Also...let's put the infoboxes at the top of the articles (like in 2000-2004) rather than below the first paragraph (like what 1994-1997 had until I just changed it). Jdorje 16:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, it could probably be either way...but it should be the same for all articles. Jdorje 18:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Heya...(1) the "image location" and "image name" tags are no longer needed in {{Infobox Hurricane Season}}, and (2) the values you're putting here are wrong anyway (all the files are .png not .gif). Jdorje 00:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It knows which map to use by magic! No seriously, it just uses {{PAGENAME}}_map.png. Jdorje 01:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thanks man! Honestly I had to look up what a Barnstar was...I haven't really been working on wikipedia for very long. Jdorje 03:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. Before you add {{Infobox Hurricane Season}} to all seasons all the way back, we should think a little bit about redesigning it a bit. For instance, if you are going to add "strongest storm" by both pressure and wind speed for every season, then this should be separated into 2 rows (IMO this is wasteful; "strongest storm" is purely by pressure for those seasons where it's available, and for older seasons you just have to guess). Also it should be renamed as {{Atlantic hurricane season}}. And are there any new fields that should be added? I guess this should be discussed at Template_talk:Infobox_Hurricane_Season. And also, you renamed one of the fields of this template but you didn't fix all the articles that use it, so 2004 Atlantic hurricane season now shows one field incorrectly (this is why we should think about the fields before adding the template to the 100+ season articles). Jdorje 20:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the "strongest storm" entry should just pick one storm as the strongest. This should be the lowest-pressure one for modern seasons. It can list both pressure and wind speed for this storm. For the number of storms I think the named/namable distinction is unnecessary. We can have a count of storms in 1893 even though none of them were named or namable. It should just be "total storms". For seasons that chose not to name the storms (or not to name some of them) we of course count the unnamed ones too (and they should be mentioned in the article, so the tallies match). Jdorje 22:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's really a problem with having the "strongest storm" entry. For older seasons we just have to either pick one or list it as unknown. There might be an issue with, e.g., the 1997 Pacific typhoon season since IIRC it had 4 typhoons of insanely high, approximately equal strength. But again...we can just fill in something that makes sense. Jdorje 22:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Tomf688 RFA vote

I'm trying to make sure that I take the time to thank everyone who voted in my RfA, and verify that they don't have any concerns over my experience, neutrality, etc. If you have a problem, please drop a line on my talk page and I will answer it as best as I can. Again, thank you. --tomf688^{talk} 02:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

RfA

You are a great editor, so I am sorry that it looks like your RfA won't get through. Better luck next time. Tintin 22:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, too bad, you didn't make it. You did get more supports than opposes, though. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 00:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Titoxd's RfA

Thank you!

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. I never thought I would get so much support! Thanks to your help, my nomination was the 10th most supported RfA in Wikipedia history. Now, please keep an eye out on me while I learn the new tools, ok? Thanks again! Titoxd^(?!?) 18:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

More hurricane track excitement

I've been annoyed at how the UNISYS track maps aren't usable here. They're just made from the NHC "hurdat" data. So...I decided to make my own! I now have a little program that reads the hurdat and draws the tracks (filtered by year, storm, etc.). See [3] as an example. But, I need a high-res geographic projection map to draw things on top of. I haven't been able to find anything at all. Do you have anything suitable? Jdorje 06:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This also allows us to play "name that hurricane" games. Start with some easy ones: [4] [5] [6]. (This game would be a lot more interesting if there were coastlines drawn.) Jdorje 07:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to get some feedback by putting some up and showing them on the betting pools page. I also added a track for Hurricane Hattie. Next step is to make it a CGI application with a nice interface, so anyone can generate these as needed. Jdorje 01:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

And another one at 1893 Sea Islands Hurricane. Jdorje 21:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, one thing I'd like your help with...the colors for each intensity used should obviously correspond to those used in the various hurricane articles (see Category:Category 5 hurricanes and other articles). Right? So what are these colors (RGB values)...can we finalize them...and will they look good as they are now? Jdorje 21:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I want to take the color scheme from the articles and put it into the program. While this is easy to do, I need to know what the exact colors are...and I need to start some discussion if they have to be changed a bit so they look passable in the tracking charts. Hmm, let me get a demo chart to begin with. Jdorje 22:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That would be this [7]. Overall I think it looks better than the UNISYS colors. Jdorje 23:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Did I ever point you to this: [8]? Jdorje 20:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Faith is unknown20. And, some files have been moved but they're all still there (in fact now there are many more there). As for how long it took...all of the season tracks there are automatically generated; it takes me no work to regenerate them (though it actually takes about an hour to build and upload them). The individual storm tracks are generated exactly (I haven't edited them at all) but I don't currently have a method to auto-generate them in large quantities. Jdorje 05:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

If you do upload a track, upload it to the commons and use {{Hurricane auto track map}} for the description there. But, don't upload too many yet since I'm still improving it and they'll just have to be replaced with better versions later. Jdorje 05:43, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Go back to the original link: [9]? Jdorje 05:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Tomf688's RfA

Well, it seems I'm now an administrator. I wanted to thank you for your vote of confidence, and, as always, feel free to drop me a line at any time. --tomf688^{talk} 01:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course I'll support you. You have all the qualities of a good admin, but you just haven't been here long enough for some people I suppose. I'm in the same boat as you in terms of our low amounts of edits to the Project namespace, so we can both try to improve ourselves there. :) --tomf688^{talk} 01:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Monarchy?

• No, that does not sound reasonable. We do not generally vote on changes to anything, including templates, and if a vote is called, consensus does not have to be unanimity. I would like to hear which templates you're talking about. Radiant_>|< 01:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Responded on that template talk page. Radiant_>|< 01:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

{{main}}

I noticed you don't use {{main}} because it doesn't stand out enough. Well, I agree, but I think we should be using a template. So I created {{hurricane main}}. Please check it out and see if you think we should use it (feel free to change it of course; I just copied it from {{main}} and added in the bold). Jdorje 07:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

1972 Season

Hey again Mr. Smarty! ;) Question on 1972 Season. It says that there was four subtropical storms but they only show three on the map and only three in the article is there a mistake?? tdwuhs

The only thing I can think of is the fact that Hurricane Betty started out as subtropical. Include Betty in the other three other subtropical storms and it makes four. -- RattleMan 22:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane tracks revisited

I uploaded another hurricane track, bring the total on wikipedia to four (see [10]). The Fort Lauderdale one in particular enhances the article quite a bit (I really like this article now). These tracks are damned good looking! However I don't want to go overboard in uploading them until I finalize the program that creates them. I still want to add inserts that (somehow) show the dates. Once that's done I have the ability to go completely overboard and create a track for every single hurricane since 1851...which would look really cool if added to the season pages. Unfortunately the program would probably have to run for several days to assemble these, and I estimate they'd be about 800 megabytes in total size, and they'd have to be rebuilt when the hurdat info changes (every couple years). On a related note I already have the program built to do this - see [11] - and it even works for all basins - but it makes the individual tracks really small so it doesn't take that long. Jdorje 00:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the tracks won't be good in the season articles...a picture is worth a thousand words, and we currently use lots and lots of words trying to explain the storm tracks, when a simple picture will convey it so much more simply. However, on to my real question: has there ever been a year where two storms have formed with the same name in all basins? I know about Hurricane Alice and Alice2, but what I'm talking about is something like a Hurricane Ivan occurring in the same year as a Typhoon Ivan. With my current naming system for storm articles (like Image:Allen 1980 track.png) this would be a problem. However I could add the basin into the name (so it would be Image:Allen 1980 Atlantic track.png). Jdorje 06:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Join the WikiProject

There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones. Since you are into tropical cyclones I thought that I'd invite you to join. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Paul Ray Smith

Mr. Brown, greetings. I haven't researched it, but was the Bronze Star that SFC Smith received for a separate action, or was it the interim medal awarded before the MoH process was finalized? (Don't know how much you know about it, but usually what happens is that while someone is being considered for an MoH a medal of "lesser" value is given that later gets upgraded.) Like I said, I've not done any research into it myself but thought you might know since you were the one that put it in there... --Easter Monkey 06:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Roger, got it. I'll look it up and let you know. --Easter Monkey 16:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

infobox

Which infobox exactly do you mean (current, nopic, piconly, regular)? I haven't changed anything in about a week, but someone was saying wikipedia had messed up formatting today. Jdorje 23:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

For me (2004 season) it is about half that wide. Can you see what is making it wider? Is there a particular season that this shows up on? Jdorje 23:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously it's wrong. I just don't know what's causing it. And I don't see it here. What browser are you using? Jdorje 01:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You can try sending me a screenshot...jdorje@gmail.com...maybe there's something that can be improved. Jdorje 04:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

At [12] is a screenshot of the 2004 season. Jdorje 07:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I like showing infobox-like information about individual storms in a table. Hoever those particular tables are indeed ugly as sin and have to be fixed. Take a look at the table at 2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Storm_summary...this is just a prototype but I think it shows that a table format can be useful (with the storm summary text in a separate listing). Jdorje 22:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

tables

Oops, that link was wrong. I mean this table from User:Jdorje/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season. Jdorje 23:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Check out 1891_Atlantic_hurricane_season. This is my new prototype for the storm table. However the table should have columns for location, damage (well maybe not for 1891), and deaths and this will make it fairly larger. Also there are some obvious formatting issues... Jdorje 06:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Tracks

Can you somewhere post a screenshot of how the tracks on the 2005 season page look in your browser? I tried in internet explorer and the pictures looked even smaller there. If you can show me a screenshot that convinces me including the tracks is unworkable...then we won't have to argue anymore. Jdorje 19:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

See [13] Jdorje 22:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

E.g., [14] Jdorje 22:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

One picture per 250 words is not too much...and most of the pictures are more important than the words they accompany. Those 1933 tracks you show are not useful...they are way too cluttered...and the 2005 season's track will be still more cluttered (though you're right, we can't judge that for certain until we see it). Jdorje 23:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If you make your font size really small and your resolution really high, you can find some problems. If I do this I can get my browsers to look like this: [15]. However this still doesn't present any problems; the pictures are just accompanying the text (even better now, since you can see lots of pictures at once). Only in a couple of places do I see a place where the pictures conflict with each other...and these should be fixable. So I still believe this is just a formatting issue. Jdorje 00:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The 2004 article definitely doesn't have enough pictures. In some places there are long portions of text with no accompanying pictures. And, the reason 2004 didn't make a featured article (and why 2005 won't either) is because it is too long and boring. The whole "storms" section is not of interest to the casual reader; it's only useful as a reference on individual storms. A featured article needs to be something that a normal person could read all the way through. Jdorje 00:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

But why is that too many pictures? You have pictures running down both sides with text in the middle. It looks great since the two pictures for each section each provide a concrete benefit: the satellite picture gives an idea of the storm size and makes good eye candy, while the track image provides an easy-to-grasp visualization of the information given in the storm history paragraph. Only when two images conflict and one of them is "indented" into the middle of the article is there a problem. Jdorje 00:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I already suggested moving the "storms" section into a different article; you guys didn't agree. I'm quite certain the best way to do it is with one storm per article (wikipedia is not paper), but you will never consider that. But to answer your question: yes, the "storms" section is useless in the context of the article, because it covers only individual storms of the season (all the effects of which are already covered in the summary or "season summary" sections), not the season as a whole. So I've given up (for now) on making this into a really good article (which I think it could be, if it were half to a quarter as long as it is now) and now I only insist on keeping it complete (by not deleting portions from it...since they shouldn't be deleted they should be moved into sub-articles). Jdorje 01:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. There is no reason everything has to be structured linearly. Using sub-pages allows moving less important information into a separate article, so the main article can focus on the important info. That way people don't have to be lead "on a leash" through a straight read; they can browse through as they like. Jdorje 02:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

So then why have the "storms" section at all? Jdorje 02:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if this should be in a separate section - but I don't understand this "led on a leash" thing. Certainly, people looking at the article about the season would expect a general overview of the season, and easing the process of browsing (or 'being led to') other articles is the whole purpose of wiki-links? People looking for details about a specific storm wouldn't mind going to the article that storm, especially if it's easily found? --AySz88^-^ 05:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobody's suggesting to drop the entire storm summary section, only move some of the details about individual storms into their own articles. That is, shorten the summaries in 2005AHS and essentially move whatever was removed into a separate article (and later develop the article further, since one no longer has to weigh the notability of something in the context of the season in general, and can include more details about specific storms). There will still be summaries of each storm left behind for readers of 2005AHS, but shorter, since only the most important facts are given to readers of 2005AHS and additional details are given in each individual article. --AySz88^-^ 03:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

But there is a difference between what is important for an overview in the context of the whole season and what is important about a single specific storm. The first has less than what we currently have, the second is more, which is why things need to be changed, so those who want less can have less and those who want more can have more. --AySz88^-^ 06:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Ava

I did a half-revert of your edit to the Hurricane Ava in the 1973 Pacific hurricane season article. What I meant by Hurricane Ava being the earliest Category 5 in the east Pacific was that it was the earliest time in a season that any hurricane had reached Category 5. I changed it back to reflect that fact. I kept your blurb on Ava being the third known (Patsy and Hurricane 15 are the two previous ones) east Pacific hurricane to reach Category 5 intensity.

PS: Your talk page is 64kb long. You might want to consider archiving part of it. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 20:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Alice

Well the DYK should rotate...I've been adding new entries for each new article that's been created, so the whole original list has rotated off by now. Jdorje 18:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should have one new DYK per day, and 4 total, so each one stays on for 4 days? Jdorje 18:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Classic Rock

Hello. I was wondering if you would like to participate in my classic rock survey. I'm trying to find the most like classic rock song. There is more information on my user page. Hope you participate! RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 02:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Archives

I would love to see your Hurricane Archives. tduwhs

Track error

1. About Isa and Levi, it is odd. I'll have to look into it.

2. About making the images larger (on the freeciv http side), I don't think that's good. They're 600 megabytes as it is. To make them full-sized would take something like 10 gigabytes. However I could generate and upload them all to wikipedia commons...maybe.

3. About the best track, I got these files from http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/, which says they're from NHC and JTWC best-track data. However it would be better to get this data directly from JTWC (I get the NHC files directly from the NHC site). Where can I find the full JTWC best-track data?

Jdorje 22:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

Hey, seeing that the FAC for Hurricane Dennis is going well, do you want to get another article from this season ready for a Peer review? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Right now, Hurricane Katrina is on WP:AID, hopefully it will win there. Then, we need to make sure we have a formal Peer review for the next article (there were some comments of "Ideally, every article should have a formal peer review, but this one is so good...", so to avoid those, we should pass them through the entire process. As for the order, I would say, Rita, Ivan, Wilma, and then, depending on the outcome of WP:AID, Katrina or 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, then look at Frances, Emily or Charley. Then, we'll go from there... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Hurricane Ivan FA and Others

The problem is that there simply isn't a lot out there about the recovery and after, since most media outlets have moved on to "sexier" news stories, such as the current hurricanes. --tomf688^{talk} 15:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Good finds, have at it. I've been busy as of late with finals and whatnot so I've not been active, but winter break is here and I'll be sure to help out some. --tomf688^{talk} 03:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Best-track

I need to be able to get best-track files for WPac, NIndian, and SPac...something that has all storms from all years in a single file, no matter what format it is. The closest thing I've been able to find is the ones UNISYS has, which I think they made themselves and I probably shouldn't be using. Jdorje 23:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

2005AHS talk

About the 2005AHS talk page... WP:NPA please... Thanks.... --AySz88^-^ 23:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but the sentence "I thought we all grew out of that after kindergarden" seemed inflammatory to me. --AySz88^-^ 23:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: 1991 Pacific hurricane season

I figured you would more likely respond here rather than AOL. I still can't believe about Thelma. Personally it reminds me of Gordon from 1994: lot of deaths from a weak storm. Still, 6000 is insane for a tropical storm. Yuri is a great name for a hurricane, and if they extend the Atlantic Ocean's alphabet to 24 letters (X, Y, and Z after W), Yuri would make a great name. You didn't send me 2005 AHS, but I'd be happy to see what you got. I'm sure there were plenty of opportunities for some awesome cutlines at the bottom. Have a wonderful Christmas by the beautful Atlanta full of cheersome people while I am stuck at my desolate desert by the sea.

Sincerely, Andrew Hink (A.K.A. Hurricanehink)

33 megabytes for one storm?!?!?! Poor computer :) I just got them, and it is wonderful (well, horrible based on how damaging it was). Some of them were very interesting pics I've never seen before, particularly Vince. Cutlines are great... typical. Thanks for the Christmas gift! I wish I had something to give back, so I'll just wish you a happy and healthy Christmas. Keep up the great work here. Have fun on your Christmas break! Hurricanehink 22:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Carol

I just uploaded a pretty insane picture for Hurricane Carol, and I thought you'd appreciate it. Jdorje 03:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Tracy Pic

Thanks, but all I did was type Cyclone Tracy on google, and that popped up. I just hope that those images aren't illegal to put on Wikimedia. Hurricanehink 00:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Button bars

I noticed you removed the button bars from Odette. While I agree that the button bars serve no purpose, simply removing them from one article isn't the answer. These button bars are included in every hurricane back to the early 90s. To get rid of them you need to take the argument to the source: Template_talk:2004_Atlantic_hurricane_season_buttons. Jdorje 01:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories

It was an error in the template. I believe it's now fixed, though it could take some time (several days?) for the categories to be updated. Jdorje 03:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

They are updated automatically but not, it seems, immediately. Jdorje 06:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

RFA talk.

I like what you just said at the RFA talk. The Literate Engineer 05:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Userboxes

Fixed it for you; edit your userpage, I left a message in <!-- -->. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 05:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Images for Every storm

I think I have a compromise. I'll just copy what I wrote in the Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Tropical cyclones page.

Crap, I forgot about the slower computers. Perhaps they can have a subpage, like Images of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. This could solve the problem of slow computers, but also allows for more than one image for some storms. There could be a warning near the link warning slower computers about the size of the article. Would this be a better solution than removing them all? Some can probably stay, but even every hurricane could get a little much. In addition, this solves the problems for when images are too big for the paragraphs. E. Brown and Jdorje, is this a suitable compromise? Hurricanehink 21:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Color scheme

Ok, we've now replaced the color scheme for the hurricane infoboxes, after going through 23 palettes... and I still believe the original colors were nicer.

Anyways, strong hint noted... :) Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it isn't as pastel-colored as the other palette, but it is still softer. But at least there's some red in there. As for the hint... well, you say that you're one of the few non-admins talking there... that means you want to be a part of the cabal... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, that's the exact thing that future admins do (behave as if they were admins), so those are bonus points for you. :) As for the vandals... yeah, they are truly annoying sometimes. If you see a vandal that is acting up, though, just report him at WP:AIV. There's probably 100 admins looking at that page at any given moment, so it is almost certain that someone will follow up on your report. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

ROFL :) No problem. Or you could ask at my talk page at any time for help if there's a vandal annoying you. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeta

Actually, I first wrote only the date - suggesting they were tied. Then someone else corrected it to say that Alice formed at 2 am...and then it got published around and several places and I finished off the last couple of them. CrazyC83 21:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

ADD

You might have been unaware, but Category:Attention deficit Wikipedians exists, so I edited your user page and changed the red link reference to the former, as I assume you would find this appropriate. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:49, Dec. 31, 2005