User talk:AstroHurricane001/Archive 6

=March 2007=

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #10
Number 10, March 4, 2007 The Hurricane Herald This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The Hurricane Herald aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global tropical cyclone activity. If you wish to change how you receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.

Storm of the month Cyclone Favio developed well to the east of northern Madagascar on February 12 and moved to the southwest as it developed. The storm did not significantly intensify until February 19 when it was just off the southern coast of Madagascar, but rapidly intensified soon after to its peak with 185 km/h (115 mph) winds. Favio turned to the northwest and hit Mozambique worsening the floods already occurring in the country. Favio claimed at least 4 lives and destroyed thousands of homes.

Other tropical cyclone activity There were a total of 6 tropical cyclones in the southern hemisphere during February. Five of these, including Favio, were in the South West Indian Ocean.
 * The only other storm in the Australian region was Cyclone Nelson which formed at the end of January in the Gulf of Carpentaria before it hit Queensland.
 * Cyclone Dora was active in January and reached its peak as an annular cyclone on February 3 with 185 km/h (115 mph) winds.
 * Cyclone Gamede was an unusually large storm that prompted the highest level of cyclone warning on Réunion and brought strong winds to the island on February 27, causing a bridge to collapse.
 * Neither Enok towards the start of the month or Humba near its end, had any impact on land.

Member of the month The February member of the month is Miss Madeline. Miss Madeline is responsible for many of the projects featured lists such as List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes and List of California hurricanes. She has also put serious work into many of our Pacific hurricane articles since she joined the project as one of its founding members. Recently she has worked on 1996 Pacific hurricane season, bringing it from a stub-class article to a Good article candidate.

New and improved articles
 * New featured content: Hurricane Erika (1997), Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Maryland and Washington, D.C., Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma, 2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone, Hurricane Isabel and List of Florida hurricanes (pre-1900).
 * New Good articles include Hurricane Pauline, Hurricane Isis (1998), 1939 Pacific typhoon season, Typhoon Tip and 1983 Atlantic hurricane season.
 * New articles include Hurricane Isis (1998), Hurricane Debby (1982), Hurricane Adolph (2001), Hurricane Alberto (1982) and Tropical Depression One (1992).

Main Page content
 * Entries from 6 articles: Hurricane Flossy (1956), Hurricane Able (1951), Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma, Effects of Hurricane Wilma in the Bahamas, Tropical Depression One (1992) and Tropical cyclone basins appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know column during February.

New articles and improvements wanted
 * Articles are wanted on Pacific typhoon, North Indian cyclone, diffluence, Outflow (meteorology) and Central dense overcast.
 * Improvements are wanted to Subtropical cyclone, Japan Meteorological Agency, Intertropical Convergence Zone, 1919 Florida Keys Hurricane Hurricane Ivan and Hurricane Andrew.

Storm article statistics

Comments wanted on project talk Many discussions that potentially have far reaching impact for the whole project are carried out on the project's talk page. However, only a fraction of our active contributors actually engage in those discussions. If you add the project page to your Watchlist and keep an eye on discussions there to monitor upcoming changes, even if you don't participate in those discussions it would help both yourself and the project as a whole. For instance, at the moment the primary infobox templates such as Infobox hurricane are in the process of being deprecated and replaced by new versions which do the role more effectively.

How?
^^ I have several wikipedia accounts (but I mainly use one), and just because I don't have many edits on THIS IP address doesn't mean I don't elsewhere. I lived in California last summer and I edited like a madman. Also, not all the questions are about just having edits. Sargun 03:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: WP TEST
Yes there is a discussion an the project page but all I did was copy and paste a revision without the fake score. Other than that I didn't change anything. Feel free to revert or rework the section. -- ROASTY TOAST  15:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You have new questions at Editor review
 Th e Tr ans hu man ist  04:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Signatures
The page was getting kind of heavy, I just figured I'd clear some off. You can put it back or put yours back if you want; it is after all, your page just as much as mine. [' Mαc Δαvιs '] ( How's my driving? ) ❖ 19:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:Teh Signatures
Thanks for leaving me a signature! User:Da.Tomato.Dude

Pagename vs PageName
You left the following comment at the article PageName: "Pagename is a rediect to Dummy target. Why isn't this one?" The answer is that wikipedia article titles are case sensitive. Thus, Pagename and PageName are entirely different articles. Another example is PANDORA (all caps), which re-directs to the Pandora Archive, and Pandora (first letter caps), which sends you to the article about the Greek mythological figure.

Hope I could help!

The Dark Lord Trombonator ( ( ( ¶ ) ) )  08:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Question on MOTD

 * Hi. I'm kind of confused about the edits procedure, proposed by you. If a motto has several edits, is the one with the most supports approved, and the other ones rejected? Also, are mottos with too few votes always reopened, even if it's one of several edits? Were there any mottos that were rejected and forgotten even with too few votes? Also, is there an archive for past mottos? I really think the mottos should be archived, or at least removed from the in review section, if it's already on the nominations page. This is because if the in review section is too long, it can cause browser problems, but the nominations page can be edited over several sections. This problem hasn't occured before, did some rule about it change? Also, great job with everything else on MOTD. PS. I created the motd star. Thanks. A  stroHur  ricane  00  1 (Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, first off, the most common way to close an edit is to approve only one and reject the other versions. This is because consensus usually favors one over the other, and they're usually so similar that approving two versions would violate the rule of duplicate mottos. However, as in the case of this nomination, some edits may be approved in addition to their original nomination. In that case, the "edits", if you can call them that, we different enough from the original nomination that they all were approved.
 * Next, about approving edits with too few votes, as long as one of the versions has gained enough support to be approved, the other versions may be rejected, even if they haven't received enough votes. The only time they would be reopened is if none of the versions had received enough votes to determine consensus. If that were the case, the entire nomination, edits and all, would be copied back into the "In review" section.
 * I don't know of any (recent) mottos that were rejected and forgotten even with too few votes. I know of one mass closing by User:Vanderdecken, which essentially created the Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 2 page, in which he was forced to either make a decision based on the 1 or 2 votes, if any, or reopen nearly all of them. Of course, that was back when MOTD had Overseers... But now, I think nominations are receiving enough votes that most are either approved or rejected. You can take a look at Motto of the day/Nominations/Archive 4 for my recent mass closing, and to see some of my reasons for rejecting mottos. Most of the time it was because of a unanimous oppose or because there were strong opinions on both sides, and therefore no consensus (even with enough votes).
 * Yes, you can view the archives for discussions from the link on the nominations page, which includes archives 1, 2, 3, and 4. A similar archive for the schedule page can be found at Motto of the day/Schedule/Archive/2006, or from the archive box on the schedule page.
 * The "In review" section is merely a subpage for the current mottos, and is transcluded to the nominations page, so no duplicates should exist. The nominations page essentially acts to display all of the current nominations, with its three sections ("In review", "Awaiting decision", and "Decisions to be acted on"). The In review subpage was initially created by User:Geo.plrd, with the reason, In review allows for speedy archiving. (discussion).
 * I think that covered most of your questions. Contact me further if you need more detail, or if I interpreted one of your questions wrongly. -- Tewy  23:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply. Hi. Thanks for answering my questions so thouroughly, and yes, you did answer practically all my questions. I could still not find a direct reason why the in review page is being so large, I thinkit is because of your mass reopenings and closings, and the huge number of mottos. I am beginning to resee mottos already forgotten for weeks. I don't really mind the page being so large, I think my browser can handle it. I guess the problem is,some mottos are so boring or unpopular, people are not paying attention to them, not even enough to oppose on its boringness. Anyway, thanks again. Bye for now. A  stroHur  ricane  00  1 (Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's the combination of a large number of nominations with a small number of votes. That leads to more reopenings, which only compound the problem. And yes, I've noticed that many people don't vote on bland or just plain bad mottos. The unanimous opposes are usually only for obscene and offensive mottos. -- Tewy  01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've revised the procedures on the nominations page, to address some of the "FAQs" on my talk page, but you can revise them further if there's a part that might confuse someone. -- Tewy  04:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Score
Greetings AstroHurricane001!

Please read the message I have put at the bottom as a reply to the accusations from several people (here). Thank you for your interest in this matter. It is nice to know that there are hardworking Wikipedians who believe in fairness and no-cheating(as I do).

Sincerely, YuanchosaanSalutations! 07:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice job
Good work on copy-editing homework. Chill Factor Five 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)