User talk:Plasticup/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Disclaimer Removal

May I ask why the current disaster template was removed from the TS Ike article? --Resplendent (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. It is not necessary. Every page already comes with a disclaimer. I am not going to bother fighting the raging hordes in the Hurricane Gustav article, but in little Tropical Storm Ike (2008) there is absolutely no need. The storm isn't even near land. Plasticup ^T/C 21:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So why is that template even in existence? The usage example on the template itself specifically gives Tropical Cyclones as an example. The Hurricane Hanna (2008) article is also currently using this template. --Resplendent (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

These disclaimer templates are constantly deleted and re-created. Think back to our basic principle for a second—we are writing an encyclopedia. It isn't our job to offer advice; it is our job to document the event. Does that template improve the encyclopedia? I say that it does not. Plasticup ^T/C 21:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how your opinion outweighs mine and that of the template creator. While the template as it is could use some work, I believe it has value seeing as Wikipedia itself is not just an encyclopedia, but has become a source of information on general current world events, and those not as familiar with how it works may assume all information is current and may end up risking their lives based on such false or outdated information. --Resplendent (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

At no time did I mean to imply that my opinion was more important than yours-I'm sorry if it came across that way. On the contrary, this encyclopedia is built on the principle that our opinions are equally important. Perhaps we ought to discuss this on the article's talk page where others can voice their opinions? Plasticup ^T/C 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I was going to suggest that myself. --Resplendent (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I corrected the disambiguation here for you. Thanks for your efforts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC) (who is not watching this page)

Thanks. Plasticup ^T/C 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

sad face....

you made me sad

why u have to rv my edits?? i worked sooooooo hard on this now i have to start over again in 3 weeks. i should be rewarded with a barnstar or other rewards. Im not going to make and edit again.Jer10 95 Talk 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC) :(

You were just a little premature, that's all. When the hurricane dissipates you can add back the infobox, and when an official damage assessment comes out you can add that too. Plasticup ^T/C 01:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

im a little happy now

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		for making me happy from the last message, i award you this barnstar Jer10 95 Talk 01:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Gustav

I'm sorry, Plasticup, I guess I was misinforemed. I went to , should I trust this site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syntheticalconnections (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

wunderground is generally pretty good. Maybe you misinterpreted what they said? I don't know for sure, but don't worry about it either way. There are plenty of editors keeping that article up to scratch, and the dissipation is just a temporary matter anyway. In the future the authoritative website is http://www.nhc.noaa.gov and/or http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov Plasticup ^T/C 01:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the way they do the tracking, unless they changed it. On wunderground they didn't have Gustav up, and they don't seem to put up storms as a tropical depression after it turns into a tropical storm. It'll be as TD7 (for example) and then its a Tropical Storm and they put one hurricane tracking shape for fight before it changed and then the TS dot. Even if it was TD for a while. I don't understand it. Syntheticalconnections (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Hurricane Gustav

I was too busy with getting updates on current storms (and the others) to put any attention in that. It's not easy when there are four (now three) storms out there... CrazyC83 (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I have published the (incomplete) meteorological history in the last few minutes. Thanks for all your help updating the current storms—it is a monstrous task right now. Plasticup ^T/C 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #20

Number 20, September 6, 2008

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. This newsletter covers all of August 2008.

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

Storm of the month

Hurricane Gustav at landfall in western Cuba at peak strength

Hurricane Gustav was a deadly and damaging hurricane which formed late in the month in the Caribbean Sea. It first struck Haiti on August 26 as a minimal hurricane, where it killed 76 people and damaged or destroyed over 10,000 houses. Gustav turned to the southwest, moving over Jamaica where it killed 11 people. The hurricane rapidly intensified to reach peak winds of 150 mph (240 km/h) before making landfall on western Cuba; in the country, Gustav damaged or destroyed over 100,000 houses, though no deaths were reported due to well-executed evacuations. In the Gulf of Mexico, Gustav weakened due to its previous land interaction, and on September 1 it made landfall in south-central Louisiana as a Category 2 hurricane, where it caused heavy damage. Across its path, the hurricane caused 101 deaths, with an initial damage total of $20 billion.

Other tropical cyclone activity

• Atlantic Ocean– In addition to Gustav, three other tropical cyclones formed. Early in the month, Tropical Storm Edouard caused light damage when it moved ashore along Texas. In the middle of the month, Tropical Storm Fay formed over Hispaniola and later crossed over Cuba into the Gulf of Mexico; throughout the Caribbean it caused 25 deaths. Fay struck southwestern Florida, moved across the state, turned to the west, and moved across the Florida panhandle, making a record four landfalls on the state. The storm dropped 27.65 inches (702.1 mm) of rain in Melbourne, making Fay the fourth wettest Florida tropical cyclone. In the end of the month, Hurricane Hanna formed northeast of the Lesser Antilles; its impact will be covered in the next month's summary.
• Eastern Pacific Ocean – Four named storms developed in the basin during the month, including Tropical Storm Kika, which was the first Central Pacific tropical cyclone since Ioke in 2006. Hurricane Hernan was the strongest hurricane of the month in the basin, reaching Category 3 status while remaining away from land. Tropical Storm Iselle lasted for a few days, but did not affect land. Tropical Storm Julio made landfall on Baja California Sur, producing heavy rainfall and causing two deaths.
• Northwestern Pacific Ocean – The month began with Tropical Storm Kammuri forming and hitting southern China; the storm killed 140 people, mostly in neighboring Vietnam, and damage totaled $120 million (USD). Tropical Storms Phanfone and Vongfone lasted for a few days out at sea, before Typhoon Nuri formed and struck northern Luzon, causing 12 deaths.
• 2008 North Indian Ocean cyclone season – A depression formed and struck Odisha.

Member of the month

Cyclone barnstar

The August member of the month is Cyclonebiskit, who has been on Wikipedia since April. The user helped maintain the current season articles as well as storm articles. Cyclonebiskit has written one GA, and wrote much of one of the recent tropical cyclone articles.

New members

JamieS93 RockManQ

Hurricaneguy Diligent Terrier

New and improved articles

• There were eight new pieces of Featured content : Hurricane Vince (2005), Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne, 2005 Azores subtropical storm, Timeline of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, Tropical Storm Barry (2001), Timeline of the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, and Hurricane Kyle (2002)
• New Good articles include: Effects of Hurricane Charley in South Carolina, Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting
• New storm articles include: Tropical Storm Andrew (1986), Tropical Depression Nine (2000), Tropical Storm Norman (2006)
• New non-storm articles include: List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes, Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison, 1967 Pacific hurricane season, List of Maryland hurricanes (1950–1979), and Effects of Hurricane Noel in the United States

Main Page content

• Hurricane Gloria appeared as Today's Featured Article on August 13
• Tropical Storm Kammuri (2008) and Hurricane Gustav appeared on In the news during August.
• Entries from articles: Tropical Storm Kiko (2007), List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes, Tropical Storm Andrew (1986), and Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know column during August.

Storm article statistics

Grade	May	Jun	Jul	Aug
FA	41	41	42	46
A	17	18	18	18
GA	129	135	139	147
B	101	96	15	15
C	0	3	98	99
Start	209	208	202	197
Stub	9	9	10	15
Total	506	510	524	537
ω	2.88	2.87	2.94	2.92
percentage ≥Less than C	43.1	42.5	40.5	39.5
percentage ≥GA or better	37.0	38.0	38.0	39.3

Version 0.7
This month, several of the WikiProject's articles were selected for the Version 1.0 Editorial Team's Version 0.7 static release. The article selection occurs using an automated process using WikiProjects' quality and importance assessments. For WPTC, this means that 29 articles will be part of this release, an increase from 13 in the previous release. It should be noted that these numbers are based on preliminary data that can change based on updates to the database and corrections to the selection algorithm and WP:1.0's cut-off score.

The list of articles chosen for the release can be seen here. Of the selection, almost half of the articles are already featured, and eleven are good articles. There one B-Class article (1970 Bhola cyclone, two C-Class articles (Hurricane Andrew, Cyclone Nargis), and two Start-Class articles (Pacific typhoon, Hurricane Rita). As these articles will be published in a CD, it is imperative that the project improve them quickly.

The full list of all the WikiProject's articles is also available here. According to that list, WPTC's highest-scoring article—Tropical cyclone—has a score of 1969, which is very good as Canada, the selection's highest-scoring article, has a score of 2,409. That said, Extreme wind warning is the least important article we have, with a score of 227, so we may have to improve it a little bit so it isn't that low...

♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Categorization and Correction of Vessel Inventories and Histories

PD: Categorization and Correction of MARAD/NDRF/NISP/etc

There is a significant problem with the following topics, perhaps you can concentrate on them and get a clear set of categories set up from official sources:

Marad's Ghost fleet includes NDRF but also NISP and many others NDRF should be recognized as the independent naval operation that it is RRF, sibling of NDRF, is a fully functional navy independent as well NIF (inactive fleet) is blatantly missing NISP, similar to NIF as NDRF/RRF are.

Most of these are databased sources, you've seen PMARS (DOT) which handles the NDRF and RRF, RRF has its own operating authority with better data.

NIF and NISP are separate operations though within the US Navy, this needs to be clarified.

Importing a full list of the vessels, types, etc, is quite a simple task, though there are at least 8 contradicting sources for this from authorities.

Marad handles both the NIF and non-nuclear (not cold and hot, only removed) storage except where NIF is operating (usually with RRF) at an active military base

The pattern is typically quite obvious, active civilian or army/navy service, NIF/NISP and RRF, then to NDRF and NISP/NIF inactive...

However, each of these timelines, some MARAD have been there for half a century, others switch between the fleets and service (gulf war, etc), are interrelated.

A category or template box need to be set up to categorize and sort these, obvious data is the actual vessel (always use original name, see SS Norway example) and redirect the newer names and intermediate IDs to the original with a sub section.

Given the suisun bay vs NDRF treehugger court case in two weeks, the clemenceau UN case this coming week, and the problems with the scrappers recently, these should really be cleaned up asap.

I have a database of the vessels in full, its being reactivated and the current data from all sources imported, however its unknown if all sources (obviously not) are public domain from journals or histories, so exporting more than the facts from .mil / .gov will be troubling to filter.

Obviously auto-generation of the historical data is possible, let me know asap how to best do this.

basicly all the vessels need to have the same template for their histories, why this has never been standardized is beyond my comprehension.

bluenorway@gmail.com and via notes.

(though slightly different in their intl classification, Aircraft Boneyard needs to be handled in the similar manner, even if the aircraft/tailnumbers are simply a table in a list page)

Scraps, feel free to clean Hurricane Gustav

New topic for each incident/major category?

agreed, however the canal needs to emphasize both the major problems (like katrina) and the economic and continuity of operation equally...

There is very little information about the canal's operation in general, this should be added

is there a standard form template for mass incidents like this which can be coppied for a gustav section ?

i expect the court cases and the rest of the issues to be very public this coming week and historically relevant as they will be reorganizing environmental and uscg/fema enforcement next week...?

industrial canal/hurricane could be broken out especially with the major investigations and cleanup, otherwise should be crosslinked as major article to these —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenorway (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the content from Industrial Canal because it is only tangentially relevant. The article is meant to be about the canal as a whole—to focus 50% of its content on one minor incident there is absurd. Besides, you already pasted the exact same text into the article on Hurricane Gustav, where is it much better suited. Plasticup ^T/C 19:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

MOVE TO http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Hurricane_Gustav#Vessels_in_the_Industrial_Canal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenorway (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You can NOT delete international vessels

those are boats. Their records are guaranteed by Wikipedia policy.

Advise you write something instead of destroying it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenorway (talk • contribs) 20:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because it exists does not mean that it is notable. You could start out by adding some content, followed by reliable sources. Right now it is just a blank page with some headings. Plasticup ^T/C 20:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be categories for the various vessel groups, I can not find them; the MARAD reserve fleet is a naval branch and should be a category, also you dont seem to realize that single incident is getting a massive inquiry and presidential order by next week. Its got to go somewhere. Source and historical data are listed for those two, obviously a short history from you will come quicker than the full reports from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenorway (talk • contribs) 21:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources? I can't help your write this thing if I don't have any sources. Also I tidied up the two vessel articles. Plasticup ^T/C 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

there are approx 20 news explicitly referencing the topic, plus 14+ federal press releases or authorities as of ... 8 hours ago. news "industrial canal" "southern scrap" also search nola.com, there is a stockpile of links in the comments of http://nola.com/mystorm/ from /01/ through current, likely the best collection while press media is under gag order unfortionately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenorway (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be some sort of message board, which does not meet Wikipedia's standard of a reliable source. Can you elaborate about this gag order? What court placed a gag order, and for what reason? Plasticup ^T/C 21:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gustav Incidents

You know wikipedia is horribly inefficient, and the exponential time required waiting on it to update correctly inhibits populating data, no less writing appropriately. Go through the hurricane page and offload the larger topics to the Incidents page before the entire Hurricane Gustav gets erased as "insignificant" -- also you should include references, hint, boat names when you simplify things excessively. ?;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenorway (talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

When the article Hurricane Gustav gets too large we will likely split off Effects of Hurricane Gustav in Louisiana. Maybe we will use Effects of Hurricane Gustav in the Caribbean. Your "split" does not improve the article. Firstly, the current article is not big enough to warrant being split up. Secondly, you are not separating content into intuitive groups. An article about "incidents" doesn't add any organization to the topic at large. Plasticup ^T/C 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bluenorway (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You should be ashamed!

Word on the street is that a certain well-known editor has been driven to madness by the abusive and unhinged personal attacks you made at RfA. He is wandering the streets of Indiana, blubbering, incoherent, a ruined man. Recant! Repent! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 05:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I just can't sleep at night! He hasn't been seen in over a week and I am worried that it may all be my fault! He does take his football ever-so seriously. If only he would return so that I could beg forgiveness! Plasticup ^T/C 05:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppetry

I was going to answer the question regarding your RFA. You shouldn't have deleted it based on the inference that im a sockpuppet. Cheerio --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The original question is still there. I only deleted my puzzlement at you having misinterpreted it. Plasticup ^T/C 06:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about this reversion Cheerio --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And you'll notice that the question is still there. Plasticup ^T/C 06:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Kissing

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I'm taking statistics this semester, and your comment made my day. Thanks! preschooler@heart 01:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"How large is this data set? Love seems to be a discrete variable with a Bernoulli distribution. If you can get a large enough sample size we can easily estimate the variance and tell you whether this effect is statistically significant. Plasticup T/C 04:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)"

......

At the same time I am astounded by this person's stupidity and their reverence for Wikipedia. Which kind of makes the latter meaningless, unfortunately. --mboverload@ 02:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Costa Rica.

I've reduced Costa Rica's protection to three days, hope you're alright with that. And I also removed the Costa Rica protection, thanks for pointing that out for me (and I'm supposed to be the one who abuses the {{RFPP|nact}} template...). · AndonicO ^Engage. 12:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You should be ashamed!

Word on the street is that a certain well-known editor has been driven to madness by the abusive and unhinged personal attacks you made at RfA. He is wandering the streets of Indiana, blubbering, incoherent, a ruined man. Recant! Repent! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 05:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I just can't sleep at night! He hasn't been seen in over a week and I am worried that it may all be my fault! He does take his football ever-so seriously. If only he would return so that I could beg forgiveness! Plasticup ^T/C 05:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppetry

I was going to answer the question regarding your RFA. You shouldn't have deleted it based on the inference that im a sockpuppet. Cheerio --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The original question is still there. I only deleted my puzzlement at you having misinterpreted it. Plasticup ^T/C 06:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about this reversion Cheerio --John Jacob Wilson Alueminous (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And you'll notice that the question is still there. Plasticup ^T/C 06:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Kissing

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I'm taking statistics this semester, and your comment made my day. Thanks! preschooler@heart 01:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"How large is this data set? Love seems to be a discrete variable with a Bernoulli distribution. If you can get a large enough sample size we can easily estimate the variance and tell you whether this effect is statistically significant. Plasticup T/C 04:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)"

......

At the same time I am astounded by this person's stupidity and their reverence for Wikipedia. Which kind of makes the latter meaningless, unfortunately. --mboverload@ 02:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Costa Rica.

I've reduced Costa Rica's protection to three days, hope you're alright with that. And I also removed the Costa Rica protection, thanks for pointing that out for me (and I'm supposed to be the one who abuses the {{RFPP|nact}} template...). · AndonicO ^Engage. 12:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Peace man. don't take the comments at your RFa personally. Some people don't have a sense of humour. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am really shocked at the responses. The people I've gotten to know here all enjoy a little humor but the RfA crowd is obviously a very different bunch. Plasticup ^T/C 19:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the RfA requires a thicker skin than the position of the administrator itself. Anyways, just wanted to wish you good luck.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, but the bandwagon has already been set in motion. I'll just get back to my articles. Plasticup ^T/C 20:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Your RFA is still new, so anything can happen. God, I hope it passes. Anyway, good job with your article building, and keep it up. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally did not have much of a problem with your offhand comment about Kurt and the Colts - I can tell when something is said in jest. It certainly wasn't malicious. My eyes widened when I read it, but only because I knew that the RfA backlash wasn't very far away. Anyway, I have my own reasons for opposing, but I'd wait, literally, 3 months and reapply. Obviously don't mention Kurt. You should be golden next time. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes for your RFA. Have a gr8 day -- Tinu Cherian - 05:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me second Wisdom's suggestion. It's really unfortunate the way things turned out this time but I think that 3 months from now this will be a non-issue in your second RfA attempt. Clearly, a carefully worded nomination is imperative and I would be more than happy to nominate you, if you wish, when the time comes. Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Its all right. I !voted neutral, because I felt that your content contribs. were great, but your WP space conribs were not so good. —Sunday ^Scribe 21:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "not very good"? Is it a matter of quality or just quantity? Plasticup ^T/C 21:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, did I say that? Sorry, I didn't mean it that strongly, I just meant that you need to work more in the wikipedia space, within areas like deletion, protection, blocking, and any other sysop-only stuff. —Sunday ^Scribe 21:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well like I said, I'm not particularly interested in that. Adminship is not a "goal". I am not going to go out of my way to get the tools. The process should be content with me demonstrating that I can be trusted with the mop and that I will use it occasionally in areas that interest me. Every admin need not be the same cookie-cutter XfD patroller. Or so I was told. Plasticup ^T/C 21:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on. Everyone is expected to have some experience with AfD. You can't tantalize me just because I'm actually talking to you. TRust me, I know how you feel. Those high and mighty admins don't let anyone have any fun. —§unday His Grandiloquence 22:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I lol'd reading your RfA. Keep writing articles, try again some time in the future. You'd be much better than most current admins. Giggy (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• I wish you all the best for a future attempt at RfA. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Flatness problem

Thanks for your kind words re. this article Plasticup. There's still a lot more that could be said there (as demonstrated by my perhaps rather premature GAN) but it will have to wait until I get access to a decent library again. Nice to know my improvements so far have been useful, though. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent RfA

I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I've just closed your RfA as unsuccessful. I'd recommend taking a bit of a break, then coming back and re-reading the Oppose and Neutral sections with a clear head so you can figure out what you should concentrate on. That way the next time I talk to you about your RfA, it'll be after promoting you. ;)

If you have any questions, just drop me a line. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I knew this was coming from about 90 seconds after the RfA opened. Don't worry, I'm not going to psych out and vandalize AN/I or anything. Most of the sensible issues were with my experience, which is understandable. Plasticup ^T/C 22:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, didn't seem like this was going to be a shocker to you... EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Imp.

no, it isn't "pushing" anything. are you saying that if damages of 24 billion dollars are reported, you won't consider this top?

How about we wait until an actual assessment comes out before making claims about the damage total? Plasticup ^T/C 01:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

hmm, I am not upgrading anything. do you get into debates quite often? I am not downplaying the fact that you get barnstars. however, I think you are kind of misguided on some topics.

Please see the discussion on the article's talk page. Plasticup ^T/C 01:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

well, I do know the rule. I have tried to understand your points, however I feel you don't listen to mine or other people's. I am trying to figure out where you are coming from. let's discuss things some more. Assuredly (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good. I just wanted to be sure. I have seen too many people blocked for accidentally violating that rule, and I didn't want to see it happen here. Plasticup ^T/C 02:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

pc, look, feel free to talk to me on my talk page anytime. I am a nice person. I think you take most of this stuff too personally. Assuredly (talk) 07:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Request more detail re your revert

You just now reverted an edit I made to Hurricane Ike, but I'd like more detail to understand why. You claimed that the original figures were in knots, but I'd like to see the reference and I'd like to understand why the referenced figures weren't shown. Thank you. --Danorton (talk) 02:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I couldn't fit any more information in the edit summary, and was actually writing a message for your talk page. The National Hurricane Center measures everything in nautical miles. For example, here (and in every Hurricane Discussion) they report the wind speed in knots (nautical miles per hour) rounded to the nearest 5 KTs. But we don't report the figures in knots, because nobody knows what they are. We convert them to mph and km/h. But if you take the mph figure and convert that to km/h, you are compounding a rounding error. For example, say the storm has a wind speed of 55 knots. 55 knots = 63 mph (rounded to 65 in the article), and 55 knots = 102 km/h (rounded to 100 in the article). But if you take that 65 mph rounded figure and convert it to km/h, you will get 105 km/h, which is wrong. Am I making sense? Plasticup ^T/C 02:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, please provide a reference to the figures you changed. --Danorton (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that I changed any figures, I simply removed the {{convert}} templates. Plasticup ^T/C 03:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please either undo your revert, else cite the reference that supports your version over the version you reverted. --Danorton (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my explanation? This has been hashed out on the wikiproject a dozen times or more. Using the {{convert}} template compounds rounding errors. The existing citations are for values in knots and nautical miles, which are not accurately converted by your use of the template. The current citations support my argument. The onus is on you. Plasticup ^T/C 04:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Houston importance ranking

Quit changing the importance ranking - read this. I represent the project, you aren't even a member. I'm not touching the importance rankings for the other projects, so stop changing the importance ranking for other projects. Postoak (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am bothered by the implication that you have some sort of ownership over a part of the encyclopedia. This is meant to be a collaboration. I have opened a little discussion of the importance ranking here. I look forward to your explanation as to why Hurricane Ike is one of the 16 most important Houston-related articles. Plasticup ^T/C 23:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ownership..and your repeated reversal of another project's ranking isn't ownership on your part. Your only response is rude edit comments. I'm deeply concerned by this also. Postoak (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Tropical Cyclones importance ratings on Talk:Hurricane Ike have been consistently vandalized by an IP editor who refuses the acknowledge consensus. See the talk page for details. I assumed that he was doing it to the Texas and Houston rankings too. I'm sorry for the blunt edit summary, but I thought that I was dealing with someone who had been reverted multiple times. Plasticup ^T/C 23:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand and I do apologize for sounding rude myself. I feel that members of each project should be able to make their own assessment when it come to quality and importance classification. Because of the current situation in the Greater Houston area, Galveston and southeast Texas, I feel this article is of top importance for WikiProject Houston. Of course, it may change later. I completely support your importance and quality assessment decisions on behalf of WPTC. I'm very sorry that you've had to endure the personal attacks at the Hurricane Ike talk page. Thanks Postoak (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

date formatting

I've looked at this, and find no ill effect from the reformatting of international to the proper US format. Am I missing something? Tony (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear. The title of the document is Preliminary Report Hurricane Gordon 8-21 November 1994. That date may not be in the US format, but it is part of the document's name. Changing that is analogous to correcting typos or expanding contractions in direct quotes. Plasticup ^T/C 16:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I see that it's in the "title" field. Sorry, and thanks for fixing. I'm trying to get Lightmouse to fix this issue: neither of us is really a programmer. Tony (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what language or program you are using, but AutoWikiBrowser has a setting to ignore everything inside <ref> tags. Perhaps that is too extreme for your use, if you want to edit date= and accessdate= fields. Plasticup ^T/C 15:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; believe me, I'd love to use AWB. Like most Mac users, I resent applications that are made for Windows only—particularly major applications. Tony (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

here

pc, why not take what I have been telling you as being constructive. I find you to be too reliant on glibness and a superficial knowledge of your subjects. rather than view this as an attack, take it as motivation TO learn more about what you say. I have told you that you being a Bermudian should be an asset, but you don't listen. you, above most of the other users, have an understanding about what it is like to be on an island - having really terrible weather sometimes surrounding you. now, if you want to address what I have said, fine. stop accusing me of being derogatory. Assuredly (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

These are examples of the ad hominem attacks to which I was referring:

• "are you inept?"
• "I happened to notice many of your "edits" have little merit."
• "I just think you guys are living in a fantasy world. you might need to go outdoors more often. unplug your computers?"
• "you know, I think you probably have no experience with debating."

I'm not sure how "are you inept?" can be taken constructively. Plasticup ^T/C 00:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"are you crazy? you can't wipe out talk pages. you have to archive them only. I have tried to be civil in my discussions with you, but the tropical cyclones project is ignoring regular redress. WHO IN HECK are you anyway? you guys are not correct. 365 daysz (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

it is called being humorous and BEING ALLOWED to use self-defense. you are quite obviously not versed in oratory. now, if you want a discussion, tell me how to talk to you offline, instant messaging for example. your views are very narrow. 365 daysz (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been anything but civil. Generally I do not agree with deleting information from a talk page, but your edits there are simply disruptive. Vandalism may be reverted on talk pages just as in the mainspace. As for offline contact, all Wikipedia-related business should be conducted on Wikipedia so that other editor may see it, learn from it, and contribute to it. Furthermore I have absolutely no desire to involve you in my personal life. Plasticup ^T/C 03:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

you are incorrect. I think you are an example of what is very awful about parts of Wikipedia. I offered to start the whole discussion over. IT IS ABSURD, completely asinine HOW you conduct yourself. 365 daysz (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

you can NEVER delete info on Wikipedia. that is CENSORSHIP, learn the definition. you can merely create subpages and archive information. 365 daysz (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No one wants to start the discussion over with you. You are combative, disruptive, and downright insulting. You attack every editor that tries to reason with you. We tried to talk to you for days and you have proven totally uncooperative. There is simply no point in us going through the same discussion again. Plasticup ^T/C 03:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

if you go back and reread everything we have said, you will see that you are seeking to be controlling. people do not have to agree on things. they can agree to disagree even. but you seek to elevate YOUR thoughts above others. you don't listen to proofs. I don't even know why you consider yourself of this importance. I asked you and a couple of others how you can be reached. but you choose to be aloof. ARE YOU JOKING? talking to someone for days is not grounds for calling them a troublemaker. it proves people are attempting to negotiate. 365 daysz (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to "you seek to elevate YOUR thoughts above others": On the contrary, every other contributor agrees with me. You are the only one pushing your position. If anyone is seeking to push his thoughts on others it is you. Please, just for a moment, consider the possibility that you could be wrong. Plasticup ^T/C 03:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

what are you talking about? in response to you elevating yourself I am lifting myself higher? is that what you mean? I think you did not phrase it correctly, because if you did, then YOU ARE admitting that you were wrong.

let's backtrack. I said the following. the task force is in error. you have only the talk pages for the two tropical storms I mentioned, Allison and Thelma. YOU don't even have the regular articles as being high importance. I am not being a troublemaker. I merely said that if Ike's damages come close to Andrew's or top it, that it should be a top storm in your categories. NOW, if I had joined the project and made hundreds of meaningless edits, you would have respect for me. as it is, you ARE very wrong in how you assess me. I am quite possibly one of the smarter people you know. I ask for your respect. 365 daysz (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

you did not answer my question(s). stop being difficult. since you claim to know Wikipedia so well, you know that I and other users WILL never let you win in your crusade to dumb down Wikipedia. 365 daysz (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Other users already agree with me. Plasticup ^T/C 04:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not even saying I am right 100 percent. I am willing to re-consider certain things. but your point about a few contributors agreeing with you HOLDS zero weight. in every decline of civilization and in every turn back to the Dark Ages there were plenty of crowds along for the ride. why do you hold such minority views? from whence do you claim them? let's presuppose that you and I agree on over 70 % of everything, why are you arguing with me about the 30  % that remains? why do you seek such chaos? IT UNDERMINES the very things you SUPPOSEDLY stand for and cherish. 365 daysz (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That is how Wikipedia makes decisions. I promise that it will not bring about the decline of civilization. Plasticup ^T/C 04:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)