Jump to content

User talk:Runningonbrains/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This page is an archive of past discussions and postings on my talk page. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Any edits will be reverted. To contact me, post on my talk page. Namaste.

Interested?

Hello Runnigonbrains. Nice work with your recent Tropical Cyclone edits. Since that seems to be a strong point of yours, you should consider joining the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject. All you have to do is sign the list, and that's that. At our headquarters we discuss the whole realm of tropical cyclones, and decide changes to make. Given your work already, you are already unofficially a member, but if you sign up, it helps keep track of all of the TC contributors. So what do you say? Hurricanehink 19:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboard! Hurricanehink 21:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...I'm not really sure how to use all wikifeatures yet (such as talk...lol) but I'm learning fast. I was happy to know that it basically works off of LaTeX, a language I had to learn for school. Anyway, happy to help with what I can.

Thanks for uploading Image:EF3_tornado_damage_example.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re

I moved your question to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones#I_gots_a_question. — jdorje (talk) 03:18, 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Records- This is optional, but can't hurt to be included.
  8. 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]

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 near its peak intensity
Typhoon Chanchu near its peak intensity
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

New articles and improvements wanted

Member of the month

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

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.

F5 tornado image

Hi, Runningonbrains, I just happened across your F5 tornado image which is the same picture as Image:Huntsville tornado damage 01.jpg. I figured it best to consolidate the pictures and went with the name that told more about the picture and copied your description over to the Huntsville version of the picture. I've listed the picture on IFD to delete it. I hope you don't mind. -- ke4roh 19:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #2

The July issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #3

The August issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Meteorology

I just read your comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology about how this WikiProject needs to be more active, and I agree. I, too, am disappointed that there's so little action on it. Perhaps we could come up with some ideas to revive the project? It was fairly active when it started, and then it just...died. I don't know what happened, but I know we can do something about it...bob rulz 12:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New pages

Hi. I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to do but you are currently creating copies of parts of the tornado article into the main namespace with titles like Runningonbrains/tornado/etymology. Pascal.Tesson 04:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Runningonbrains/tornado/social implications

Hi, I think you inadvertently made a section of an article public that you meant to put on your userspace. I have relocated Runningonbrains/tornado/social implications to User:Runningonbrains/tornado/social implications. Czj 04:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tornados

Runningonbrains thank you for taking the time to educate me about tornado frequency. Please excuse my ignorance about wikipedia, I'm quite a newbie and I still don't know if its customary to reply on my talk page where you left me a comment or if I should respond on yours.

I think part of the confusion is because we're used to think of tornados as gigantic and very violent natural phenomena typically found in the US. Here in the netherlands we simply don't get the kinds of violent tornados the US gets, and the last violent occurance as I noted happened 40 years ago, and even that one was a 'mere' F2-F3.

There is also the question of terminology. The English-speaking world don't differentiate between weak and strong tornados, while here in Holland we do (including our national weather service) make the distinction. What we do get quite often are tiny whirlwinds that are relatively harmless, like this one [1], but we don't call those 'tornados'. Albester 15:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Version 0.5 FA Review

Hi, Brains! Would you be able to look over the last handful of Physics FAs and Geology/Meteorology articles at Wikipedia:Version_0.5_FA_Review? I'm hoping we can tie up the loose ends on those sections by Thursday (31st Aug) - is that possible? Thanks! Walkerma 17:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jarrell_TX_tornado.gif

Hi! I posted the URL for this image on the image page. It did indeed come from the SPC. Thanks RyguyMN 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting set up for the bot

Hi! I assume you will change over "Hurricane" to "Meteorology". Take a look at the instructions first, and then have a go at it. First you will need to create a category Category:Meteorology articles by quality and place it in Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments. Then tag a few, and when you get red linked categories then put all of those into Category:Meteorology articles by quality. After that, wait 24 hours (be patient!) and see if the bot has picked up your list here. If the bot does its nightly run, "Update index" and your list doesn't show up, let me know and I'll try & help. By the way, someone very knowledgable on this is User:Titoxd who wrote the hurricanes template you used. I'll look for it showing up tomorrow! Walkerma 02:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #4

The September issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oh by the way, I'll probably help with the met tagging over the next few weeks or so :)--Nilfanion (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completing Version 0.5 reviews

Hi again, thanks for your help on Version 0.5. We've made it over 1000 articles! Now we only have about four weeks left to review articles for Wikipedia:Version 0.5. I was wondering if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Version_0.5/To_do and sign up for something? I'd like us to make sure we don't miss anything important. And once the end of the month rolls around we can take a well-deserved break...! Any help you can give would be most welcome. Thanks, Walkerma 21:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorology project

I've seen that you are putting priority stubs on the articles I was refering to in my comment. I guess what I was talking about is what you call "basic meteorology" in the project. It was far from clear in reading the text that it includes such items as observing devices and theory. Don't worry then about my comment. Pierre cb 10:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment tracker

I created one for the individual events, starting with 2006. CrazyC83 06:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thermometer image

Thanks for your note. I'm glad you found the image useful, but unfortunately, I don't have time to create another one. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Europa (moon) GA Review

Ive completed most of your ideas for improvement theres two which i have disputed back on the talk page. I have listed the page for copyediting also, please tell me if the changes i have made are enough, and reply to my disputes if u feel they need adressing, then hopefully in a few days or so, it'll be ready fo GA =) -- Nbound 13:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppiness on both counts :-)

Rather afraid that I might not have understood how to place a GA nomination! At one point I put the GA nomination on the disputed page, but noone commented. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help with the referencing, also i think i will re-nominate Europa at a later date - so i have time to polish it up, so feel free to fail it for the moment -- Nbound 04:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #5

The October issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You helped choose Microorganism as this week's WP:AID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Microorganism was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.
Davodd 03:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Outbreak

Also a copy at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology page under section # 17 Tornado lists.

Hello!

Sure, it may be better to put the description of some of the tornadoes texts in the parent article and that would also put a greater chance for the Super Outbreak article to be considered as a featured page as it would not have the problem of conflicted/disputed (NOAA VS the April 3 1974 page) data of the list (and there is plenty especially in the southeastern states affected such as Tennessee, eastern Kentucky, North Carolina and Georgia). The only thing maybe to add on the table is just direct link to the individual tornado sub-section. Meanwhile, we can continue to add sub-sections for other tornadoes like Windsor, Frankfort, Juno, GA, Roanoke, and some of the Tennessee tornadoes (Cumberland, Moodyville, Etowah, etc) in which info is quite hard to find and conflicting (and confusing too). --JForget 13:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm doing currently a survey on the Talk:Super Outbreak tornadoes page.--JForget 13:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't there be a flood box?

I understand now that having a meteorology box and flood box is redundant. I do not think that a hurricane box and a meteorology box are redundant, as the projects overlap. If you do not have both boxes, the articles won't be listed under meteorology when you search by grade. There is significant precedent for having both boxes in articles, enough so that I have no idea what the standard method of using the boxes within articles truly is. Thegreatdr 18:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I now know why hurricane and flood supercede meteorology for the boxes. To answer your question, I have gone through all the winter storm-related articles and placed winterstorm at the top. I just now placed a weather-data on top of weather station. Otherwise, it has been quite random. Thegreatdr 16:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Johnson (weatherman)

Hello. Just to let you know that I've reworked the above article to address all of the concerns (it wasn't my article in the first place, btw). I'm fairly confident it's now of keepable standard. --The JPStalk to me 20:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado Article

I put this reply on my talk page, but I wasn't sure if I was in fact supposed to put it here, so I went ahead and did so.

Thanks for the welcome! I understand how you feel about the "conflicting information" about tornado structure and formation from online sources. Part of the reason for this is that we indeed don't know all that much about the inner core structure of a tornado, and there are a lot of nonscientific or superficial explanations out there. If you could give me an example of some of this conflicting information you are getting, maybe I could help you more. Most of the "state of the science" on these subjects is found in journal articles, and new theories and observations are coming in all the time. Mobile Doppler radars, such as the DOW's (Doppler on Wheels), and Dr. Howard Bluestein's research group here at the University of Oklahoma (which I have worked with in the past, mostly in driving the radar trucks, as I formally belong to another research group), have been instrumental in this effort, and literally cutting-edge research just in the last few years is coming out of observations by these groups. You can check out the DOW website at http://www.cswr.org (although the site appears to be down at the moment).

I would suggest that if you really want to get down to the scientific details of tornado formation, that you take a look at the AMS Journals and do a few searches for tornadoes and related phenomena. The journals are online at http://ams.allenpress.com If you want to check out some conference papers as well, you can look at http://ams.confex.com/ams/htsearch.cgi

I see there are already several good internet links to tornado information in the article. I would also recommend going to http://www.stormtrack.org and check out the links section. There are a whole truckload of links to various sites that deal with tornadoes. As a starting point, I would also recommend this site, http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/references.html , as it's a fairly good list of some of the recent scientific research.

Otherwise, regarding a definitive answer as to what is known about tornado formation, the best I can give you is that we have some promising leads and plausible theories, but I personally believe that tornadoes can actually form in a multitude of ways, and that the final "trigger" that produces a tornadic vortex where there wasn't one before in a supercell storm may be radically different for different events. That said, we have a good idea that the RFD is very much involved in at least some tornadogenesis episodes, and the basic theory is that the RFD actually helps to bring rotation aloft down to the surface while simultaneously stretching and concentrating it, possibly providing that critical link between the mesocyclone and the ground. Other theories focus on the production of horizontal, baroclinically-produced, vorticity along the leading edge of the forward flank gust front, which is subsequently tilted and stretched in the updraft. As I mentioned on the talk page, some recent observations suggest that small-scale "proto-tornado" vortices at the surface can combine into a larger vortex, which is then stretched vertically and connects with the low-level mesocyclone to produce a deep, persistent tornadic vortex (I believe the DOW group discusses this on their website, but I can't remember for sure). I will see what I can do in providing some links that more formally discuss this.

I would love to collaborate (I've already lent my name to the Meteorology Project here), but I'm relatively new and still getting used to how Wikipedia works. That's part of the reason why I've been cautious and haven't actualy edited any articles yet. I want to make sure I document my contributions properly, and collecting references and writing good edits looks like it will take some time, which I don't have a lot of right now. However, I'm excited about helping, and I daresay you will see some contributions from me on this article and others.Wthrman13 04:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment tracker

The date it is listed was the date or dates of the event. For events lasting a week or longer, it is listed at the first and last dates of the event (some are estimated if they have vague details). The color background is the class it is at. It is not quite complete, more could be added. CrazyC83 14:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Extratropical cyclone

UK tornadoes

To the best of my knowledge, the statement was true. According to the Torro organisasion, the UK experiences an average of 33 tornadoes per year, and Dr. T. Fujita first recognised this statement as fact in 1976. ... TORRO.or.uk FAQ Question 8 --Crimsone 17:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a very fair point. To be honest, I only added it to mke it less US-centric in the knowledge that we have a very special climate here in the UK due to the NAD in no small part coming into contact with either cold northerlies or siberian easterlies in the winter from Europe - I felt the contrasting airmasses that tend to converge over the good old maritime climate of the UK would be perhaps one of the clearest land-based exapmples of how it can all fit together outside of the US. Of course, understanding your thoughts now, I agree that it probably should be left out. the "Great Storm of 1987" is probably a better UK example though, but even there it's slightly confusing the issue, because it even caught the Met Office off guard (largely due to a lack of observations at sea and a lack of knowledge of Extratropical cyclones at the time). It's certainly the one that the UK would best remember. Besides that, I can only really think of the severe flooding over much of Europe a few years ago to balance out the US element, or more recently, the still quite tropical feeling remnants of Hurricane Gordon from this year. Any ideas?Crimsone 17:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warm Core

With regards to your comment on the wikilinking of warm core, I had moved something highly technical (and slightly irrelevant for the reasons you moved the page) from the article into it's own page some time ago at Barotropic cyclone Would this suffice (with expansion) for your purposes? The reason that there's no mention of baroclinic cyclones is purely because none has been added yet :) It could quite reasonable become an article that describes each and then compares and contrasts them. Crimsone 18:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Sorry about that. When in doubt, I tend to automatically go for alphabetical order. lol. Crimsone 22:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #6

The November issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado events listing subdivision pages

Ah, a physics student, a very similar field --that is very important to atmospheric sciences :-). I've begun to split the charts, as suggested on the talk page for the what I guess will become a disambiguation page. I'm glad you're excited, hopefully things will get moving to make the tornado events listing more readable. It's quite a resource that is developing. I need to go back in and cleanup the main page for non-notable stuff since I've neglected the list after putting it together late last winter. Evolauxia 12:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added events for Europe, Asia, and Southern Hemisphere, and added a template for North America. I've yet to remove the events from the primary listing since everything is a work in progress. Feel free to go ahead and move whatever you like. Evolauxia 20:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd note on my User:Talk page.

Hi Runningonbrains, what is the note on my User:Talk page about? I don't even know what Algebra 1, Jackson Tennessee is. Thanks! Eliot 19:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comfrey - St. Peter Tornado Outbreak

A while ago you'd tagged this as needing cleanup. I've tried to improve a few things, can you take another look at it? The only thing I'm unsure about right now is how much info is supposed to be included in the descriptions for each individual tornado. If that needs to be cleaned up some I can work on that as well. Gopher backer 22:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I'll try to see what I can do. Meanwhile, I just created a new article, Climate of Minnesota. This is a start, and I'm going to try and add a few more things over the next weeks. Are there any info boxes or any other gizmos you know of that would fit in here? I can't find any other climate of 'state' articles to compare to (in the few random ones I tried...). Gopher backer 05:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles by quality counter

Hi Runningonbrains!

I was just wondering if you could tell me where you're getting the article count from? Crimsone 11:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Gibraltarians

Spanish gibraltarians has been deleted with 3 votes for keeping and one for delete. I can only assume that the administrator who deleted article made a mistake so I have reposted it. Can u please take it off the speedy deletion list? --Burgas00 18:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving of sources at List of Asian tornadoes and tornado outbreaks

To keep the tables as clean and compact as possible, as well as standardized, please add sources with the footnote method, rather than another column. Thanks; and good work on various meteorological articles. Evolauxia 01:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Peter Stanford

Runningonbrains, you have just placed a speedy deletion template on Peter Stanford. Please be more careful when applying these templates. The article already met the WP:BIO guidelines. In addition, please bear in mind what is stated in the WP:CSD guidelines: Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, please consider whether an article could be improved or reduced to a stub. Also, please note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation. Alan Pascoe 23:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, the stuff about WP:BIO is irrelevant to WP:CSD. Criterion A7 is valid only if notability is not asserted in the article. In this case it clearly was. You should not have applied the flag. The administrator who deleted the article should not have done so. I have raised the matter on WP:DRV. Alan Pascoe 16:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precipitate deletion of Anthony Powell Society page

This new page, which you have flagged for speedy deletion, is a work in progress devoted to one of the most active and successful international literary societies, the high regard in which it is held being evidenced by the distinguished panel of scholars and authors who participate in its conferences and the institutions (Eton College, Balliol College, Cambridge, and the Wallace Collection) which host its conferences. You flagged the page while it was still being worked on: moreover it conforms to Wiki guidelines, so we would request a more considered approach to such flagging.

Powell was regarded by such writers as Evelyn Waugh and Kingsley Amis as amongst the greatest British novelists of the 20th century, a view supported by present day critics like A. N. Wilson. Powell's work remains in print continuously, has been the subject of TV dramatisation, and continues to be set text.

There is a significant body of material relating to Anthony Powell and his works already in Wikipedia, which appears to have generated considerable and growing interest and bears Administrator approval. The new entry on the Anthony Powell Society provides information likely to be valuable to students, academics and general readers on how that may be developed. I note that a strong argument for the retention of such pages has now been posted on the discussion page for the entry.

Numerous other literary societies, smaller, less successful and less international have been allowed to retain entries. The intention is to refine this entry and it is respectfully suggested that time be allowed so to do. In the circumstances we would be grateful if you be kind enough to reconsider. Thanks. Balliol 09:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, this page looks like a useful addition to Wikipedia and appears to be in compliance with guidelines, although no doubt it can be improved. Powell could hardly be described as other than one of the giants of 20th century English literature so I fail to see the justification for proposing deletion. These hair-trigger attempts to delete new entries are causing unnecessary annoyance across the Wikipedia community and should be firmly resisted. I note that this is not the first such episode and would politely suggest a more measured approach. MissHeather 14:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Kadlecik

ROB, you recently placed a clean-up tag on a new article, Ivan Kadlecik. I've replaced this with a proposed deletion tag, because a Google search indicates that the article is nonsense. Alan Pascoe 13:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Underwood

I have tweaked the article and I am sure it is not a candidate for speedy deletion. Many thanks. part 17:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extratropical cyclones

A revision contained personal information. See Wikipedia:Oversight] for more information. Bastiq▼e demandez 14:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Meteorology count

I was just wondering if you would consider updating your template by substing the two modified quality category templates I've created to your own space, and updating the main table as appropriate to include links on the needed and current categories? Just a suggestion :) - see what the heck I'm talking about from here if needed :) Crimsone 04:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Advection, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Runningonbrains/Archive_1&oldid=1088861555"