User talk:Loren36/Archive2

Hi there

Hi Changlc, I noticed your recent changes to the article on Conscription for the Taiwan(ROC) section. As a new user I appreciate you adding stuff I missed. Good job adding the part about reserve service for grad degree holders. Some advice though, you might not want to volunteer for that since the pay is crap during the 4 year service period compared to what you can get with an advanced science/engineering degree elsewhere in Taiwan or other countries.

Drop me a line sometime on my talk page. Like to see your thoughts on this.

achou79 (talk) 1:40, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC)

reply -Loren 03:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for welcoming me, Loren. I guess your only other option is to never visit Taiwan again, eh? I'm lucky I guess as my parents applied for overseas status for me while I was young enough (it's easier to get as long as you apply outside Taiwan before you turn 12). The irony is I'm actually thinking about joining the Canadian Forces, so I'll be a Canadian soldier instead of an ROC one, ha. Anyway, I wish you luck with your reservist service. Hope to talk to you again.Alan 06:15 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I like how you mentioned enlightened dictatorship, Loren. A lot of us in Canada think we live under such a system, except we get to elect a new dictator every few years. Just the lack of real legislative check on executive powers in the Canadian system. Do you Americans feel the same way with a prez? Hehe. I agree with your view on Taiwan politics (independence vs unification), and I'm hoping whatever the outcome it would be reached peacefully and freely. Later.

Alan 01:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tests

How was my post on here vandalism? I'd appreciate an answer rather than an outright block or ban. Sfmil 05:21 11 january 2006 (UTC)

replied -Loren 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sfmil 05:36 11 january 2006 (UTC)

More Tests

I don't understand what I'm being 'warned' about. I added my opinion on the subject, same as everyone else, and I see no evidence that what I did has been reverted or deleted in any way. What exactly did I do that justified a 'warning'? The Monster 03:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

responded, sorry about the mistake, warning retracted. -Loren 03:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did discuss with other editors

L,

you noted on my user page that I should discuss concerns with other editors. I did. Instead of working to develop concensus, the other editors had the page blocked from editing to reserve it in the version they preferred, and refused to respond substantively to rational discussion on the talk page.

Perhaps you didn't take time to review the page history, but a handful of bullies have taken over the page. It is no wonder people have resorted to removing content. It is an open encyclopedia after all. I have no objection to the cartoons being on the page -- my objection is the deletion of references to occassions when lawful societies have opposed expression that some find offensive -- it is these references that the bullies have persistently deleted from the page. 17:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Question about 24.215.238.4

I'm not sure how this works. 24.215.238.4 was temp blocked a day ago. He's back now and he blanked all the previous warnings off his user talk page. Is that allowed? Crumbsucker 11:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou!

I noticed you reverted the blanking of Phase Distortion Synthesis. Thats really neat, to know that there is somebody out there taking care of the vandals. Keep up the good job! MX44 13:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetes Citations

Thanks! Man, just when I was about to move on with making Planetes a featured article because of the citations. Thanks a lot, I appreciate it. --TcDohl 05:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, another thing, as it seems like you have the manga, do you think you can scan individual panels of the manga, one panel per chapter? If you can, please help with moving the manga summary into its own article. I'll give it much of the same treatment as the List of Planetes episodes article. Thanks! --TcDohl 02:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asustek name

Hi! For sake of completeness I have added (what I think is) the Chinese spelling of the Asustek name to the ASUS article. Could you please check if it is correct or not? Would it be more correct to label it as CJK instead of Chinese? Thanks a lot. I don't know Chinese, but I felt the article needed this info. Cheers, Gennaro Prota 13:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

space time

This is about your edition in hoshi no koe article, about physics.

I've added a comment to it, maybe you should read. From what I know, you probably know better physics than I do, but I think most studies about time traveling nowadays are too premature to get us to conclusions about things we don't really know, just suspect of. I mean, I do understand a lot about how it could be, or about what is believed to be possible. But it seems to me like nobody has a confirmation, a physical proof, or even a flawless theory up to date, and you were affirming that if they meet again, in the story, he would have to be older because of something Einstein must have said.

Problem is, as far as I know, Einstein were never complete, just pointing the "right direction" of subject to study. I'm no expert, but what I understand from the little I know about his theories, they are all either incomplete or wrong. Light speed isn't absolute and Energy might be much more (or much less) than just any defined matter multiplied by "squared light" ( $mc^{2}$ ).

--caue 21:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response. See also time dilation for confirmation. -Loren 23:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, I just wrote my response now! I'll be editing the article again next. --Caue (T | C) 23:32, Thursday 2006-03-23 (UTC)

i think you got me into a final agreement point. nice talking to ya! :) (more on my talk) --Caue (T | C) 12:12, Saturday March 25 2006 (UTC)

I just read your edition, I think it was perfect once again. Maybe i'll re-read that article in a few months and try to understand it again, with a different point of view. :) cool, hehe, nice job! --Caue (T | C) 13:13, Saturday March 25 2006 (UTC)

vandal

You may wish to block User talk:198.234.202.130 as he/she continues to vandalize. - CobaltBlueTony 18:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto User talk:71.28.196.250 e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Prince_of_Tennis&diff=56160981&oldid=55934823 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Samurai_Champloo&diff=56160826&oldid=55934727 if it hasn't already occurred. RB30DE 10:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edits in question were made before the last warning was given, he hasn't made any edits since [1]. Please report him to WP:AIV if he vandalizes again. -Loren 16:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Segregating ROC/PRC military stuff

Category:Chinese military aircraft, ugh. Look at that template too. SchmuckyTheCat 20:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

How are you, ChangIc, I was glad to find you listed a translator; can I ask your assistance with an English to Chinese article ?Res q68 04:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to draft a simple but concise medical article, which has several applications in Wikipedia. I was hoping to place it in a few languages, to be of help to as many people as possible. So, the text is--

A practical approach to such complicated auto-immune conditions may be found in the perspective of complementary medicine practicioners. Cases often follow a cycle of (1) allergic reaction (usually dietary), then (2) malnutrition, causing (3) internal bacterial disequilibrium, resulting in (4) strain on liver function and expression of relevant symptoms. The likely cause can be determined with simple patient lab tests, like pH and simple-sugar absorption tests, and then an appropriate course of treatment can be produced. This generally means a person first avoids their allergens, then rids themselves of problem micro-growth (sometimes with antibiotics), then builds back their immunity, with a basic rotational diet of natural unprocessed food (including fish such as salmon, rice, nuts such as almonds and walnuts, and vegetables like carrots and cabbage). The diet is supplemented with vitamins (A, C and E are vital), minerals (including zinc), amino acids (such as glutamine), probiotics (like acidophilus), and herbs (including garlic). Exercising within the patient's ability can also help the process.

(And, an external link, which is but one of many sources-- http://mdheal.org/leakygut.htm).

The article appllies to several conditions, so where we determine there is an article already, it could fit in a "Treatment" section...

Hopefully this isn't a bother for you, but let me know in any event...

Much thanks, All the best, Res q68 04:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

subdivisions mass rename - help needed

kind of urgent, could you help me to postpone the mass rename initiated by User:William Allen Simpson. IMO this should go to the project page first.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Subnational_entities/Naming#Umbrella_terms.

current voting is at: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_4#Category:Subdivisions_by_country_to_Category:Political_divisions_by_country Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thx for your help :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there are three votes, you only voted on the third. Can you vote on the others? Just to be technically correct. (BTW hope that postpone is seen as "oppose for now") Yes, defining the terms seems to be the most important. The nice thing: this could be done in article space, so we could be really productive. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the past discussions are about other individual articles, e.g. Buenos Aires Province. Was a long way, but currently settled to either use "XY Province" or "XY (province)". The former is preferred for sets of subdivisions where the disambiguation is needed for all articles. The form "XY province" is with exception to the Phillipines currently eliminated. There will likely be problems in the future with municipalites, because then the country name AND the division type needs to be added to the article name. (hundreds of San Jose's around) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

I just posted this message on Tobias' talk page, thought I'd copy it here to save time :-)

I understand your opposition to the renaming, but the only thing I am supporting is the creation of a single term for the categories, "ADministrative Divisions". I do not agree with the nominator to use different terms, and I do not suggest a renaming of all articles within the categories; just the categories themselves. Judging from the entry on categories from the the WP:Subnational entities page, it doesnt seem there was an idea on how to tackle this yet. Lets seize the opportunity and do it now!

For that reason, I think its a bad idea to move the discussion to the different projects. We'd have to cross-post to every different sub-page. This way the discussion is centralised. Instead, lets point all those projects to the discussion on CfD. I have already done the two main projects, perhaps you could post on other project pages as well?

Thanks and greets, The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 08:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotect on Template:Politics of the Republic of China

This convention doesn't appear to apply to any other template that we have. No others are in CAT:SEMI. In fact, the convention if there is one is not to tag templates that are perma-protected and to use a <noinclude> tag on the front page of those that are. -Splash^talk 23:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it's been the better part of 3 weeks of protection for that template now. I figure the edit war has been fixed and the protection can be lifted? WP:SEMI is not for edit wars, even when an anon is involved, since it discriminates against them specifically. -Splash^talk 23:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, so it is. Perhaps conventions have diverged — I 'clean' CAT:SEMI fairly regularly, and I don't think I've found a tagged Template talk: page before, but then I rarely (ever?) look in the main full-protection category. I didn't realise it was written in PPol. It obviously makes a kind of sense, but I rather suspect that page was written prior to the invention of noinclude and its brethren. -Splash^talk 23:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. -Splash^talk 23:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivision category debate

The original debate for renameing the country subdivision categories was closed and a new debate on the subject has now been listed. The results of the old debate are shown, but will not be counted when the current debate is closed. You are being notified because you were involved in the previous debate. If you still have an interest in the outcome, please come and participate in the new debate. - TexasAndroid 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFR - Please clarify

Please give evidence that the IP address in question is assigned to the CFR. A whois on the address shows a class B 66.9.x.x owned by:

INTELLISPACE, INC OrgID: ITLS Address: 11 BROADWAY City: NEW YORK StateProv: NY PostalCode: 10007 Country: US

Thank you! 84.160.236.203 20:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a whois using this site, which gives the hostname as "ny.cfr.org". It seems that while Intellispace is the ISP, the IP address in question is assigned to CFR. -Loren 22:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Should have done a reverse lookup myself. Thank you. I found another IP address that resolves to "dc.cfr.org" and I marked that talk page accordingly. 84.160.236.203 23:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Changlc,

The Persian Jews article was unprotected today, but a full-scale edit war has resumed again. Can you please protect it again before the situation escalates? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 06:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

²²Na?

Hello, I suspect you have possibly misread the label on your radioactive Na source [2] as being ²⁷Na when it is actually ²²Na? ²⁷Na has a 1/2 life of mere milliseconds while ²²Na has a 1/2 life of ~2.6 years [3]....--Deglr6328 03:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's quite possible I misread it, especially since that particular experiment was over 2 years in the past. Thanks for checking. -Loren 03:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:HurricaneWarning

Template:HurricaneWarning has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Joe 03:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your well-reasoned "keep"; I suppose we differ fundamentally as to whether, absent any legal compulsion, we ought to advise readers as to the nature of Wikipedia as prospectively vandalized or, in any case, out-of-date. IMHO, AGF exists only to further the creation of an encyclopedia, which creation is not likely to be severly retarded by the deaths of several users (even valuable editors) in view of their having improperly relied on Wikipedia for information (or even by the concomitant bad press); we are (or, to be sure, I am) wholly value-neutral relative to external happenings, as I have argued, inter al., at WP:NE. Fundamentally, your "keep" is justified by humanitarian concerns, and, as I wrote in my nom, I view those concerns to be unencyclopedic and as such irrelevant to our work; we come at the project, I imagine, in different ways and fundamentally, on this point, must agree to disagree. Joe 04:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that our actions or inactions are irredeemably and intrinsically non-neutral; we differ, I suppose, apropos of how we ought to act in view of such knowledge. I maintain that we ought to be wholly disinterested in the external consequences of our actions or inactions; I surely would feel no culpability were some readers to die after relying on incorrect info on Wikipedia, and I wouldn't impute any malignancy or sociopathy to such feeling (nor would I to my general lack of concern over such deaths). I gather that you'd feel differently (if only viscerally), and I suspect that most WP editors concur with you in this regard. (The best explaination of my rationale is my belief that true neutrality is having events in the outside world driving changes in Wikipedia, not vice versa is a very potent contention, IMHO, and one about which I will have to think at length.)

Joe 05:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of rollback

In this your edit [4], you used the rollback function to revert what was not vandalism. Please refrain from any such use in the future. JSIN 10:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for the reversion was explained on the category talk page. Please refrain from politicizing non-political articles in the future and resorting to strawman arguments. -Loren 19:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the edit had merit is beside the point. Rollback should only be used in reverting clear-cut vandalism, and an explanation on the talk page does not make it alright to use it for something that is not vandalism. It is not about politicising non-political articles, but it is about correctness and NPOV. Please explain how my rationale is a strawman argument. I find it offensive that you say so. JSIN 06:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The strawman argument is that you are focusing on the use of the reversion itself rather then the rationale for using it in this case. Reverts are commonly used in undoing POV edits on multiple articles [5][6] or in fact, any situation where moving the the previous version of an article is warrented [7]. Rather then focusing on the method of the reversion, perhaps you should focus on why it was made. Per guidelines, the reasoning for the reversion was left on the article talk page. -Loren 12:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was definitely not a blatant violation of NPOV. Taiwan, Province of China is used in a number of contexts and is not saying whether the ROC is illegitimate, etc., or touches on any of that. There is a Taiwan Province of the ROC. There is a Taiwan Province of the PRC (claimed). Thus, Taiwan, Province of China is a perfectly correct and descriptive term. Given the complexities of this issue, it is not easy to label something as deliberately introducing POV. JSIN 13:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, we're finally getting somewhere with this discussion. Referring to Taiwan as a province (whether under the ROC or PRC) is in itself a point of view that is not universally shared. Neutrality dictates that we use the broadest applicable term, in this case, the Taiwan article which refers to the geographical region. The issue of political status is covered under that article. This is a sensitive issue, and you may wish to refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV: The term "province of Taiwan" can be offensive and should only be used when attributed to its source or referring specifically to the existing division under the ROC (for example, "James Soong was the only popularly elected governor of Taiwan Province"). -Loren 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rochdale

Thanks for that. It was a strange case as I couldn't really use the test templates, but thought it should go to AIV as it was clearly disruptive, and I was running close to 3RR myself whilst not getting a response from talk pages or 3RR.

Looking at this edit and this page on RO, this editor almost certainly is the website owner. He seems to have a vested interest in bumping up his Google rating too... [8] A q uilina 20:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing Localman (talk · contribs)/82.69.96.41 (talk · contribs)'s contributions I have temporarily unblocked him/her since they haven't spammed since that last warning. However if he/she does it again report them to WP:AIV for an immediate block. Looking at the anon's previous edits I'm surprised he hasn't already been blocked before. -Loren 20:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK, no worries. Actually the last two edits did come after the warning, but I know the blocks aren't punitive and I'm happy for the article to stay as is (although I doubt how long it will stay that way, given the above!). I'll use AIV again next time - I reported to 3RR an hour previously (after the sixth revert!) and still have received no answer there.

Anyway, thanks again for all your help! A q uilina 20:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article formatting

Dear Tropical cyclone editor,

As a member of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject, you are receiving this message to describe how you can better tropical cyclone articles. There are hundreds of tropical cyclone articles, though many of them are poorly organized and lacking in information. Using the existing featured articles as a guide line, here is the basic format for the ideal tropical cyclone article.

Infobox- Whenever possible, the infobox should have a picture for the tropical cyclone. The picture can be any uploaded picture about the storm, though ideally it should be a satellite shot of the system. If that is not available, damage pictures, either during the storm or after the storm, are suitable. In the area that says Formed, indicate the date on which the storm first developed into a tropical depression. In the area that says Dissipated, indicate the date on which the storm lost its tropical characteristics. This includes when the storm became extratropical, or if it dissipated. If the storm dissipated and reformed, include the original start date and the final end date. Highest winds should be the local unit of measurement for speed (mph in non-metric countries, km/h in metric countries), with the other unit in parenthesis. The lowest pressure should be in mbars. Damages should, when available, be in the year of impact, then the present year. The unit of currency can be at your discretion, though typically it should be in USD. Fatalities indicate direct deaths first, then indirect deaths. Areas affected should only be major areas of impact. Specific islands or cities should only be mentioned if majority of the cyclone's effects occurred there.
Intro- The intro for every article should be, at a minimum, 2 paragraphs. For more impacting hurricanes, it should be 3. The first should describe the storm in general, including a link to the seasonal article, its number in the season, and other statistics. The second should include a brief storm history, while the third should be impact.
Storm history- The storm history should be a decent length, relatively proportional to the longevity of the storm. Generally speaking, the first paragraph should be the origins of the storm, leading to the system reaching tropical storm status. The second should be the storm reaching its peak. The third should be post-peak until landfall and dissipation. This section is very flexible, depending on meteorological conditions, but it should generally be around 3. Storm histories can be longer than three paragraphs, though they should be less than five. Anything more becomes excessive. Remember, all storm impacts, preparations, and records can go elsewhere. Additional pictures are useful here. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its peak, use a landfall picture in the storm history. If the picture in the infobox is of the storm at its landfall, use the peak. If the landfall is its peak, use a secondary peak, or even a random point in the storm's history.
Preparations- The preparations section can be any length, depending on the amount of preparations taken by people for the storm. Hurricane watches and warnings need to be mentioned here, as well as the number of people evacuated from the coast. Include numbers of shelters, and other info you can find on how people prepared for the storm.
Impact- For landfalling storms, the impact section should be the majority of the article. First, if the storm caused deaths in multiple areas, a death table would work well in the top level impact section. A paragraph of the general effects of the storm is also needed. After the intro paragraph, impact should be broken up by each major area. It depends on the information, but sections should be at least one paragraph, if not more. In the major impact areas, the first paragraph should be devoted to meteorological statistics, including rainfall totals, peak wind gusts on land, storm surge, wave heights, beach erosion, and tornadoes. The second should be actual damage. Possible additional paragraphs could be detailed information on crop damage or specifics. Death and damage tolls should be at the end. Pictures are needed, as well. Ideally, there would be at least one picture for each sub-section in the impact, though this sometimes can't happen. For storms that impact the United States or United States territories, this site can be used for rainfall data, including an image of rainfall totals.
Aftermath- The aftermath section should describe foreign aid, national aid, reconstruction, short-term and long-term environmental effects, and disease. Also, the storm's retirement information, whether it happened or not, should be mentioned here.
Records- This is optional, but can't hurt to be included.
Other- The ideal article should have inline sourcing, with the {{cite web}} formatting being preferable. Always double check your writing and make sure it makes sense.

Good luck with future writing, and if you have a question about the above, don't hesitate to ask.

Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block conflict

Just to let you know you Blnguyen and I conflicted in blocking 203.45.116.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Currently my block is the first to expire. Prodego ^talk 02:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #1

Number 1, June 4, 2006

The Hurricane Herald

This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The Hurricane Herald aims to give a summary of the activities of the WikiProject over the past month and upcoming events over the next month. In addition monthly tropical cyclone activity will be summarized.

You have received this as you are a member of the WikiProject, please add your username in the appropriate section on the mailing list. If you do not add your name to that list, the WikiProject will assume you do not wish to receive future versions of The Hurricane Herald. Sorry if the newsletter breaks your talk page formatting.

Storm of the month

Typhoon Chanchu was the first typhoon and first super typhoon of the 2006 Pacific typhoon season. Forming on May 9 over the open western Pacific Ocean, Chanchu moved over the Philippines on the 11th. There, it dropped heavy rainfall, causing mudslides, crop damage, and 41 deaths. It moved into the South China Sea, where it rapidly strengthened to a super typhoon on May 14, one of only two super typhoons recorded in the sea. It turned to the north, weakened, and struck the Fujian province of China as a minimal typhoon on the 17th. The typhoon flooded 192 houses, while heavy rainfall caused deadly mudslides. In China, Chanchu caused at least 25 deaths and $480 million in damage (2006 USD). Elsewhere on its path, strong waves from the typhoon sank eleven Vietnamese ships, killing at least 44 people. In Taiwan, heavy rainfall killed two people, while in Japan, severe waves killed one person and injured another.

Other tropical cyclone activity

Tropical Storm Aletta existed in the eastern Pacific Ocean from May 25 to May 29, peaking as a 45 mph tropical storm.

New and improved articles

New storm articles include: Typhoon Joan (1970), Hurricane Bonnie (1986), Tropical Storm Matthew (2004), Storm of October 1804, Typhoon Chanchu (2006) and Cyclone Olaf.

New non-storm articles include: Tropical cyclone rainfall climatology, Dvorak technique and List of Bangladesh tropical cyclones.

New Featured articles: 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Hurricane Mitch, Hurricane Irene (2005) and Hurricane Claudette (2003)

Articles which became A/GA class: Hurricane Katrina (A), Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans (A), Hurricane Felix (1995) (GA), Cyclone Percy (A), Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 (A), List of New Jersey hurricanes (A), Hurricane John (1994) (A), Tropical Storm Isabel (1985) (GA), Tropical Storm Odette (2003) (GA)

New articles and improvements wanted

An article is requested on subtropical ridge
The current collaboration of the fortnight is Hurricane Gilbert, please help improve this article.
Improvements are requested to Indianola Hurricane of 1886, Hurricane Camille and Hurricane Andrew.
The WikiProject is likely to submit Hurricane John (1994) and Hurricane Katrina to Featured Article Candidates in the near future, so please help improve them to featured standard.

Member of the month

This isn't the generic barnstar, we just don't have a WPTC star yet…

The May member of the month is TitoXD. The WikiProject awards this to him for his brilliant work in improving articles. TitoXD joined the WikiProject in October just after it had been founded. Since then he has contributed substantially to many articles, for example Hurricane Nora (1997), which is currently a Featured Article Candidate. He is also actively involved in the assessment of articles and so helps to improve many more articles.

Explanation of content

If you have a topic which is not directly related to any specific article but is relevant to the WikiProject bring it up on the Newsletters talk page, and it will probably be included in a future edition of The Hurricane Herald.

These two sections are decided by the community on the newsletter's talk page:

Storm of the month: This is determined by a straw poll on the page. While all storms will be mentioned on the newsletter, the selected storm will be described in more detail.
Member of the month: Nominations are made on the talk page, voting is by secret ballot; read the talk page for details. The winner receives the WikiProject's barnstar (when we make it).

Main Page content

2005 Atlantic hurricane season appeared on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on June 1.
Hurricane Floyd will appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on June 17.
Entries from Dvorak technique, Typhoon Joan (1970), Typhoon Chanchu (2006), and Storm of October 1804 appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know column during May.
Entries from 5 other articles relating to tropical cyclones had appeared in the Did you know column earlier in 2006.

Storm article statistics

Grade	April	May	June
FA	7	7	10
A	4	5	7
GA	0	3	5
B	62	66	82
Start	154	177	168
Stub	13	12	10
Total	240	263	282
percentage ≥Less than B	69.6	71.6	63.1

The assessment scale

The cyclone assessment scale is one of the bases of the new assessment scale for Version 1.0 of Wikipedia. It splits articles into several categories by quality, to identify which articles are "finished" and which ones still need to be improved.
The assessment scale by itself counts of several grades:
- FA: reserved for articles that have been identified as featured content only.
- A: this grade is given to articles that are considered ready for Wikipedia:peer review. The way to get this grade assigned to an article is by asking other cyclone editors at the WikiProject's assessment page.
- GA: reserved for articles that have passed a good article nomination.
- B: these articles are "halfway there", and have most of the details of a complete article, yet it still has significant gaps in its coverage.
- Start: articles that fall in this category have a decent amount of content, yet it is weak in many areas. Be bold and feel free to improve them!
- Stub: these articles are mostly placeholders, and may in some cases be useless for the reader. It needs a lot of work to be brought to A-Class level.
The way to use these assessments is by adding a parameter to the WikiProject template on the articles talk page ({{hurricane|class=B}} as an example). This feeds the article into a category which is read and parsed to create an assessment table, summary and log.