User talk:Dylan620/Archives/2009/March

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #24

Number 24, March 7

The Hurricane Herald

This is the bi-monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The Hurricane Herald aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global tropical cyclone activity. If you wish to change how you receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. This newsletter covers all of January 2009 and February 2009.

Please visit this page and bookmark any suggestions of interest to you. This will help improve monitoring of the WikiProject's articles.

Cyclone Fanele near peak intensity

Storm of the month
Cyclone Fanele was the first cyclone of tropical cyclone status to strike western Madagascar since Cyclone Fame one year prior. It formed on January 18 in the Mozambique Channel, and rapidly organized, reaching peak winds of 185 km/h (115 mph). It weakened before moving ashore in Menabe Region southwest of Morondava, and rapidly deteriorated over land. Fanele briefly re-intensified after reaching open waters, only to become an extratropical cyclone by January 23. The cyclone caused heavy damage near where it moved ashore and along its path, resulting in at least eight deaths. Fanele struck Madagascar just two days after Tropical Storm Eric brushed the northeastern portion of the country. The two storms affected over 50,000 people, of which at least 4,000 were left homeless. Fanele struck the country during a series of government protests, and consequentially relief efforts were hindered.

Other tropical cyclone activity

• Western Pacific Ocean– The first tropical cyclone of the season was Tropical Depression Auring, as designated by PAGASA. It formed on January 3 to the east of the Philippines, producing heavy rainfall and flooding on Mindanao island. Never organizing much, the depression dissipated a few days after forming, causing one death and destroying 305 houses. The next month, Tropical Depression Bising formed near Palau and, moving westward, later passed through the Philippines as a remnant low; rainfall from the system produced mudslides, though no major damage was reported.
• South-West Indian– Tropical Storm Dongo was the first storm of January in the basin, and it remained over open waters without affecting landmasses throughout its duration. In the middle of the month along with Cyclone Fanele, Tropical Storm Eric developed and moved near Madagascar, killing one and producing heavy rainfall in the northeastern portion of the country. Later, Cyclone Gael killed two people on Réunion while tracking for ten days east of Madagascar; at the time it was the 2nd strongest cyclone of the season. Lastly, Tropical Storm Hina persisted for about five days, nearly reaching tropical cyclone status before weakening.
• Australia- During the previous two months their have been nine Tropical Lows with four of them becoming a Tropical Cyclone whilst the remants of Cyclone Innis briefly moved into the Australian Region from the South Pacific. Cyclones Charlotte, Dominic, Ellie, and Freddy all caused damage to Australia and or the Indonesia Islands.
• South Pacific- During the last two months the south Pacific has come alive with six depressions forming in January and February. The most significant depression was Tropical Depression 04F which brought heavy rainfall to Fiji and caused widespread flooding and killing at least 11 people. The first two named storms, Hettie and Innis also developed, each having minor effects on land.

Member of the month

Cyclone barnstar

The member of the month is... HurricaneSpin HurricaneSpin is a relativly new member of the project who has helped the project out by finding photos of Tropical Cyclones and uploading them to Commons. He is still getting to grips with the project but is coming on in leaps and bounds thus we have decided to make him the Member of the Month, for January and February 2009.

New members

• Chukonu xbow
• La Pianista
• Leolisa1997
• X!

New and improved articles

• There were 12 new pieces of Featured content: Typhoon Tip, Hurricane Linda (1997), Tropical Storm Keith (1988), Tropical Storm Kiko (2007), Hurricane Daniel (2006), Timeline of the 1972 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 1992 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 1994 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 1997 Pacific hurricane season, Timeline of the 2005 Pacific hurricane season, Timeline of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season, Timeline of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season
• New Good articles include: Tropical cyclone scales, Rainband, Cyclone Agni, Hurricane Barry (1983), Hurricane Ileana (2006), Hurricane Beta (2005), 1952 Groundhog Day tropical storm
• New storm articles include: Hurricane Bonnie (1986), Hurricane Henriette (1995), Hurricane Howard (2004), Typhoon Conson (2004), Typhoon Prapiroon (2006), Typhoon Yagi (2006), and Cyclone Cliff
• New non-storm articles include: 1854 Atlantic hurricane season

Main Page content

• Entries from several articles, including Tropical Storm Kay (2004), Typhoon Wayne (1986), Effects of Hurricane Ivan in Jamaica, Tropical Depression Ten (2005), 1941 Florida hurricane, Hurricane Darby (2004), Typhoon Olive (1952), and Cyclone Arthur (2007) appeared in the Did You Know? section of the Main Page during January and February.
• Hurricane Dog (1950) appeared as Today's Featured Article on January 27.
• 2009 Fiji floods appeared on the Main Page in the In the News section.

Storm article statistics

Grade	Oct	Nov	Dec	Feb
FA	49	50	50	56
A	19	19	19	17
GA	190	198	202	239
B	13	21	22	14
C	119	118	122	122
Start	204	210	210	198
Stub	19	16	17	28
Total	613	631	642	669
ω	2.88	2.87	2.87	2.80
percentage ≥Less than C	36.4	35.8	35.4	33.0
percentage ≥GA or better	42.1	42.2	42.2	46.6

Project News
The project reached a milestone in the last two months in terms of article quality for all articles within the project. For the first time, the percentage of Good articles or better reached more than 1/3, and at the same time, the percentage of Start or Stub articles totaled less than 50%. In the previous twelve months, the overall project grew by 262 articles, of which 204, or 78%, were GA or better. Additionally, in terms of only storm articles, the project now has 46.6% of its articles as GA or better, and only 1/3 are Start or Stub. Unfortunately, much of that is due to newly-created articles easily attaining GA status. For storm articles, the total number of Start or Stub articles, currently 226, is about the same as it was a year ago. The lack of work on older articles is especially noticeable on season articles, where more than 75% of articles are still Stub or Start.

In an attempt to improve articles, there is talk of forming a collaboration between a few Wikipedians. The current project is to improve Hurricane Camille to FA status in time for its 40th anniversary this August. There is still plenty of work to be done, so if you're interested, any help would be appreciated.

Additionally, there is a recent discussion on the WPTC talk page about establishing a notability criteria. There was talk in the past of instating one, although this time the proposal is backed up by interpretations of existing Wikipedia policy. The proposal would limit articles to tropical cyclones that have at least one independent, reliable source other than any warning centers. Excluding cross-basin, off-season, or 64+ knot cyclones, the proposal would affect 26 articles, none of which affected land or lasted for an appreciable amount of time.

Jason Rees (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Cookie!

download has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

-download | sign! 02:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: RfA

I thank you for your time, and respect your opinion, but whilst I concur that that comment was unnecessary and not particularly constructive (although wouldn't have at the time), I don't see it as being the core of whether or not I should be able to serve the community as an administrator. For the record, the comment was intended to lighten the mood, and close the conversation on a better note than the tones which it had been continuing in. Since the whole point of the conversation beforehand had been that Biblo's attempt at humour had gone pear-shaped, I guess I should have known better than to use humour to try and bring a smile to Pedro's face. I do, however, resent that it was interpreted as being contumelious - my intentions were certainly not veering towards that direction. RfA is all about whether the community feels I am ready, and I trust the community not to think of me as an unsuitable candidate simply for making a well-intentioned comment that rubbed the wrong way. Thanks again, — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 12:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

Would you like me to provide you with some of the diffs concerning EMG's incivility and personal attacks?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Diffs of incivility and Personal attacks

Incivility/Personal attacks

As a note, just to make sure things are crystal clear, it states on WP:NPA that: accustations which do not cite evidence, such as in the form of diffs, can be considered personal attacks.

Time and time again I told this editor to back up his claims, and either he reverted me without a response, or refused to.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• What a complete and utter joke! Not once but twice this admin has broken policy/(bottom of page)Disapointing how you can persistently abuse your powers and not even have the slightest bit of guilt in doing so. Almost seems as if you enjoy it. Disapointing. I would be ashamed but I guess we are completely different people. El Machete Guerrero

• No it does not, let me inform you to read WP:SOCK as you obviously are clueless. El Machete - Calling another editor clueless - Incivility/personal attack.

• Calling an administrator's reasons for doing something rediculous, not to mention asserting that a long-standing admin either didn't know policy, or chose not to follow it

• Telling me(dae) that I was breaking policy without citing any concrete evidence

• Lying about what he did in the above diff

• Again lying about what he did in the diff above this one, along with lying how I am breaking policy(as can quite clearly be seen, he did say I was in the above diff(sorry if I'm being redundant))

• Complete unfounded claim that I am acting in/have blind rage

• Claiming that I am wikistalking, without any diff/evidence to support his claims - Wikistalking is following around another editor's edits and reverting them, inserting one's self into conflicts the editor is having, etc. There was no evidence supplied to support this.

• Claiming personal attack when I was just citing the evidence supplied by the CU

• Claiming attacks from others without evidence

• Claiming incivilty without evidence

• Again claiming incivilty of others without evidence

• Telling me I'm in denial, still with no evidence

• Again making claims without evidence

• Claiming that I(Dae) am knowlingly breaking policy

• Suggesting admins use their powers based on self-interest(check the bottom of the diff

• Yet again, claims of wikistalking and harassment without citing evidence

• The user refusing to back up any of his claims

• Calling another admin's edits nonsense

Misleading edit summaries

• Rm Harassment This edit was actually not reverting harassment, but was removing a message placed by an admin, along with a sockpuppeteer template placed by an admin.

• removing attack template - In actuality, this template was not an attack template, and was the same one an admin had previously added after CU found the user to be using multiple accounts, to what appeared to be avoid scruiteny.

Claimed evidence/others

• In this diff, the editor claims to have evidence backing up his arguments. The diff he presents is in fact me adding a confirmed sock template.

That is all for now.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think that this edit sparked the original ANi thread that resulted in El Machete Guerrero's 72 hour block for 18RR. Notice that the IP accuses El Machete Guerrero of being an employee of Machete Records, i.e. of having a conflict of interest. If it turns out that this editor does have a COI (and I appreciate that this may never be satisfactorily proven) then it throws into doubt the value of their earlier contributions, which is something to be weighed when considering any unblock request (or indeed a community ban). Not exactly evidence but surely relevant, so I'm posting it here for inclusion. Thanks for volunteering to collect this stuff! Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! (Pretty easy to do this when I want to. :)) →Dyl@n620 20:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the day, man. Now I have three to worry about... bibliomaniac15 00:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing habits, redux

Dylan, we need to have a chat. Your contribution history is a little disturbing. You had several editors and admins, including myself, tell you at the beginning of January that you needed to up your mainspace participation. As near as I can tell, you took a break for a large part of January, but then came back, and still made no mainspace contribution. You "retired" in early February, then came back a short while later. You made a large group of mainspace edits over three days in late February, now over a month ago; while these were good, they were little more than automated Twinkling. Since then, you have made a grand total of three edits in the mainspace. Yet now you are not only requesting access to the account creation tool, but creating yet another Wikipedian Day collection? We have enough of those as it is; what makes you think it would be a good idea to make another? With all due respect, I think you should reconsider your activities here; you need to be focusing on building an encyclopedia. GlassCobra 15:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

GC, I just don't feel capable of building an encyclopedia. I guess I'm just really not one for building articles; I'd like to help out in other areas. Deep down, I'm more of a WP:GNOME. FWIW, that retirement was meant to be for real, but my addiction to Wikipedia brought me back a lot sooner than originally planned. →Dyl@n620 19:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see you gnoming much of anything right now, except maybe the list of banned users. Right now, you're just posting at the dramaboards and giving arbitrary honors, neither of which we need more of, to be quite frank. Gnoming, as per the definition that you linked, involves working on articles. GlassCobra 20:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to return to vandal fighting. →Dyl@n620 20:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jiggley

Looks like we both warned him about vandalising your userpage at the same time :} Jason Rees (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it has been a while since we last spoke, by the way, if your looking for an easy cyclone article to write anytime soon. You would be most welcome to help with Hurricane Camile which is being developed in a "Project sandbox" by several members of the project including myself, and Hurricanehink. If you wish to help out pick a section and try and expand it using reliable sources like the Tropical Cyclone Report issued on Camille. Jason Rees (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: ACC

It means what it says: You must be approved for access before you can use it. We have rather stringent requirements for users to be accepted, along the lines of 1000+ edits and at the very least about 6 months of experience on Wikipedia, although usually we look for more than 6 months because we don't really need many more people. However, these requirements are not set in stone, and all requests are subject to the personal review of a tool administrator (for the same reason: Because we aren't exactly in need of more help). But, I will review all current requests later this evening when I can get to my home computer, and you will be denied/approved then. In the meantime, you should read the ACC guide to know what to expect if you are approved. Please note that your request is already a little shaky, though, based on GlassCobra's comments here. --FastLizard4_SOCK (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your request to be approved to use the Internal Account Creation Interface is pending review, and needs your approval.
To prevent people from impersonating Wikipedia users to gain access to ACC, we require all requests to be verified by the requesting user. These are the details:

• Requested username on ACC: Dylan620
• Wikipedia username referenced: Dylan620

Please let me know on my talk page whether or not you have made this request. If you did, the request will be reviewed. If you did not, the request will be denied and you won't be bothered again. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 05:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been approved to use the Internal Account Creation Interface! Some important notes before you get started:

1. Abuse of the interface is not tolerated, and access can be revoked by an interface admin at a moment's notice
2. If you end up hitting the 6 accounts-per-day limit, you can request the Account Creator userright from RFPERM. However, like access to the interface itself, it can be revoked if abused.
   

Now that you have read the generic warnings, please read (or re-read if you have read it already) the tool's documentation page which includes a link to the tool's request-filling interface. If you ever need any help, I myself am an interface admin and developer, so feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if you need help, or would like a new welcome template added to the autowelcome feature!

IMPORTANT: If you did not request this account, please NOTIFY ME IMMEDIATELY.
--FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 06:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re!

Thanks! Good to know someone appreciates my work. Cheers! Mario1987 15:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Axmann

Regarding [1] I'm pretty sure you meant someone in that conversation other than me. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean, I wasn't endorsing the block so I'm confused by your statement that you agree with both Wikidemon and me. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I understand now. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Axmann8...

...says his first name is Dylan. If he was named for Bob Dylan, and is a right-winger, no wonder he's got such a bad attitude. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the evidence: [2] And if you live in Indiana, you might want to consider either moving or adding a security system. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Massachusetts is like No Man's Land for right wingers. New England in general, with the possible exception of New Hampshire, is becoming Liberal Utopia. But he's in the state that produced Dan Quayle. Oy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, wasn't the Massachusetts city of Fall River the location of a famous ax murder? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Always glad to be of service, and comfort. 0:) So, do you know the ca.1979 film, Animal House? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I even know the 60ish song[3] about it. PhGustaf (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Great! This was in reference to a sleeper account, Chip Douglas, which reminded me of Chip Diller (Kevin Bacon), a pledge to the straight-laced fraternity composed of "Greggie, Douggie, and some of the other Hitler youth." Artur Axmann was the head of the real Hitler Youth. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:HUG

Sorry, yeah; I was away. It's not really my decision, but sure, why not! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it does kinda look like his... *whistles innocently* –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Help!

{{Helpme}}

I'm having trouble with Huggle. I have it downloaded, but when I try to use it, it can't connect to the server. Does anyone have any ideas how I can fix this? →Dyl@n620 17:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Your best bet is to ask at WT:HUG. //roux   17:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

As I'm here, may I suggest that if you're using Vista you run as administrator? I had the same problem. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

ACC Requests

You've recently marked requests 25977 and 25985 as 'Too Similar.' However according to the current guidelines if the account is older then one year, and have not made an edit in over a year, they can be created by a user with the accountcreator flag. This is why the tool automaticaly seperates them into 'Open requests' and 'Flagged user required.' Not having the accountcreator right, you should limit yourself to the Open requests, and leave the rest to those who can handle them. I've reinstated you for the time being, please be more careful in the future. Q ^{T C} 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Dylan

Welcome to ACC! I checked my recent accounts and SQLbot has done its job fine - so the bot is up. There is about a ten minute lag between creating the account and the bot posting the welcome template (maybe to give you time to change your mind?). When the bot is busy it could be a little longer. I checked out some of your accounts and I think you are just going too fast for the bot! You've been tagging those pages within a few minutes of creation. Just wait 10-15 minutes and SQLbot should do it's job. You've made a great start on ACC in the last few days. Remember, if you get any tricky decisions, don't be shy of asking for help. Or you can release a request, let someone else handle it and watch what they do - that's how everyone learns :) There's also an IRC channel for the ACC team at :irc://freenode/wikipedia-en-accounts This is a great place to get quick help and advice on dealing with requests. Let me know if you have any more questions. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

More help, please

{{helpme}} This time around, I'd prefer if a trusted ACC user would help me here. I'm currently trying to deal with a request at WP:ACC. The IP address has made 10 previous applications, yet the e-mail address changes each time. And it's an AOL IP. Should I continue to try to handle the request myself, or should I defer to admins? →Dyl@n620 20:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll find someone who can help, and send 'em over.  Chzz  ►  20:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and drop the IP; I can take care of it. In addition, consider using the IRC channel if you want to work with the Account Creation; it is much more efficient to talk to you that way. 20:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWarfare (talk • contribs)

You're too late; Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs) got to it first. :P →Dyl@n620 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a note in the site notice of ACC explaining what to do for AOL IPs. (Specifically: "Note:AOL proxies are neither the true requesting IP nor the IP that shows up when they edit Wikipedia. There is currently no way for the toolserver to determine the correct IP.") Basically you should create it, which Backslash did. Prodego ^talk 21:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mitchazenia's Day

Thanks. I like the idea, and it was thoughtful. Thanks again.Mitchazenia :  Chat  3 years and counting... 21:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AlexiusHoratius

I noted this, and I am curious -- under what grounds should they be treated any differently from any other concern? He clearly has reasoning for his views, as demonstrated at WT:RFA, and his reasoning is just as valid as any else, even if I disagree with it (which I do). I don't see how your comment is constructive, there is no reason to act like his comments are any less valid than, say, "we need more administrators". — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

He's explained his position pretty well at WT:RFA. I still don't see how simply disagreeing with a candidate is a reason to think that their opinion is somehow invalid, though. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you just picking on Dylan? There are plenty of other users at plenty of other RfA's who have the same opinions/make the same comments as Dylan. Are you leaving them the same message? iMatthew // talk // 22:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now I am offended. My comment was not 'picking on' anyone, I was trying to understand Dylan's grounds for his statement. Assume good faith. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you or didn't you leave this message for others with the same opinion? iMatthew // talk // 22:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You already know the answer to that, but I fail to see how it is relevant. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I got my answer. iMatthew // talk // 22:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I like Dylan, I think he does some good work and puts in good effort. I have no reason to pick on him, and nor would I want to. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Dylan, if you feel I was picking on you, I assure you I wasn't, but if it came off as such I apologise. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't feel like I was getting picked on. And even if I did, I would accept your apology. :) (Although, it did feel strange with that dispute between you and Matt; that is, comments after every few minutes when they're not directed at me.) →Dyl@n620 22:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wish that hadn't come about. That was more than likely merely fallout from something else which occurred between he and I, should be sorted now. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)