User talk:Mitchazenia/Archive5

Minor edits

Please stop marking every edit you make as minor. To quote Help:Minor edit, "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette." This is especially true after another user had already told you to stop doing this about a week ago.

Also, please familiarize yourself with the edit summary feature. -- NORTH ^talk 01:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Infobox

I'm slightly unclear as to what your request is. The only difference I can see is the street names parameter. Are you saying that you'd like to include that in the infobox?

One thing you might want to try instead is to use the more major segments under "alternate_name". See the way Central Jersey Expressway is listed on Route 138 (New Jersey). -- NORTH ^talk 23:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: I'm guessing you read

Nah, I only read that once I read your post on my talk page. I'm sorry to see you go, but good luck in the future with anything you aspire to do. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Image gallery

No, I don't like the image gallery you've placed on the CR 676 page. Please crop the images so that the black background is not visible. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, and we should aim for professionalism. It is not just a repository for things you find interesting and the photos you take of them. Captions such as "Pic of..." are not "the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry", to quote the tag at the top of the article. -- NORTH ^talk 08:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I added US Route 1 at exit 130 on the GSP but they took it away, I can try again.

Nextbarker 00:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Dan

I'm having 2nd thoughts about US 1 on the parkway info box, because there's no entrance to Route 1 northbound on the GSP and there's only one entrance to the GSP Northbound on US 1.

But 22, I believe is more major.

Your recent edit summaries

STOP using edit summaries as your personal edit count, it is disruptive and can be considered a violation of WP:POINT. – Chacor 16:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

2007 predictions

I have deleted your 2007 predictions page, per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not your free webhost to put up what you wish, especially when it is not related to the upkeep of an article, or talking about yourself (which is what a user page is for). Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re your edit to WP:USRD

Removed for privacy reasons. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed for privacy reasons ---Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed for privacy reasons--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed for privacy reasons Don't feel that you can;t be a part of the project. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I had to remove stuff above. Saw the stuff at WP:CHILD coming down. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Coincidences

Thanks, I only used Ana in the page beacause (at the time) it was the only storm to be used 5 times without a hurricane. I'll add Beryl to that too. Thanks! →Cyclone1→ 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Go for it! →Cyclone1→ 20:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Espeacially with that retirement one. That's pretty cool. →Cyclone1→ 20:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Very, cool! Thanks. Hold on, Let me try something with this (organization-wise) →Cyclone1→ 21:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I don't think we should put pics of Alicia and Allison (95) becasue thats not what the article is about. It's about the two main Allisons, ya know? →Cyclone1→ 21:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the article is abot the similarties of Tropical Storm Allison (89) and Tropical Storm Allison (01). It's not about the other two storms. →Cyclone1→ 22:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Emmy

It's not bad, but I doubt there's enough information out there to justify having an article for Emmy. There's simply not a lot of info for storms in that time period. Also, when searching, you should type "Hurricane Emmy", not Hurricane and Emmy. Keeping them together will limit the results to what you want. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Then there most likely isn't enough enough information for an Emmy article. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. It doesn't matter of someone wants it. I know for a fact that someone wants every storm since 1950 to have an article, but some things aren't going to happen. As it is, I'd rate the Emmy article a 2, due to lack of information and poor writing. I'm sorry, but not all storms can have articles, and unless you find some website that has unseen info on the storm, Emmy probably cannot have an article. All it did was cause the plane crash and, while sad, it is not enough to justify an article for a storm with very little info. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

An automated message from Werdnabot

Hi there, I tried to archive your user talk page, but it seems that you have an error in your Werdnabot directive that prevented me from correctly archiving your User talk page. Please review this error, or contact Werdna648 for assistance. Werdnabot ^(DNBF)/_T\^C 22:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Mitchazenia#How_stupid_is_Highland_Park.27s_School_System.3F

Re. User:Mitchazenia#How_stupid_is_Highland_Park.27s_School_System.3F, see WP:NPA, WP:USER. Please remove it. – Chacor 17:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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) 00:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Middlesex CR 676 image gallery

When I cleaned up the County Route 676 (Middlesex County, New Jersey) article, I removed your image gallery. You asked me what I thought of the gallery when you posted it, and I responded that you need to crop the photographs so that the black background in the images was not visible. You did not do so, thus I removed the images since they were not of the quality expected of Wikipedia. -- NORTH ^talk 12:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hurricane 11

The article is practically an exact copy of the storm summary in the season article. I think you should wait until the 1933 AHS is done. I have been working on that lately, and I am considering trying to get it to FA status. Any major changes, such as adding articles or formatting changes, should wait until it's done. I'm sorry if I sound mean, but that article is a personal project of mine right now. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Still, before you publish it, can you wait until 1933 AHS is done? Right now, almost all of it is found in the season article. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: 1933

Yea, for some reason, storms from about 1925 to 1965 had a lot more info than 1966 to 1990. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think we should use numbers for pre-1950. There is an ongoing hurricane reanalysis, and the numbers will likely be changed over time. Having an unofficial name is better than having to change them. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sussex CR 615

I've created the shield you requested. Please cleanup the article; some of it is incorrectly copy and pasted from your Middlesex 676 article. -- NORTH ^talk 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: List of Texas hurricanes

... OK. If you are truly serious about making such an article, it is going to need a lot more work. I'll put it this way. Your article is probably 2% of the quality and length of what an ideal "List of Texas hurricanes" article would be. I'll go point by point. A true List of Texas hurricanes article wouldn't stop at 1885. There are plenty of available sources to extend it to the 1500s-1600s. Furthermore, it is missing a lot, a lot of storms. From 2000 to present, there have been TD 9 (00), Allison (01), Bertha (02), Fay (02), Lili (02), Claudette (03), Erika (03), Grace (03), Marty (03 EPAC), Ivan (04), Matthew (04), Emily (05), Rita (05), and John (06), and that's excluding 2 storms that required hurricane warnings and 1 that required storm warnings for the state. You only mention 8 of those. The ones you did mention were very short summaries of what they did. They give no details, such as rainfall totals, wind reports, and or actual damage. What is the point of even having this article if there is no original information that can't be found elsewhere? This is a very ambitious project, and unless you are willing to put a lot of work into it, it adds nothing to Wikipedia. The writing is poor, especially with phrases like "Tropical Storm Chris got near Texas" or "The storm never made landfall in Texas although Jeanne weakened for being over the Texas area" that make no sense. In all, I don't like it. More effort should have been put into it. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's better. Now, it's probably around 30% of the quality and length of what the ideal article would be. It's still missing a lot. First, look through all of the archives, including here, here, here, and here. I put strong emphasis on that last one, the raw observations for Hurdat. There's stuff there you might have missed, including rainfall and wind speeds for older storms. Be sure to add the dates for every storm section. It means little saying "The fourth tropical storm made landfall near Corpus Christi". When did it make landfall? How strong? Hurricanehink (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Streets in Highland Park, New Jersey

This is to inform you that the articles you have created for North Second Street through North Fifth Street in Highland Park, New Jersey have been proposed for deletion. You can find the discussions for them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 14. Badbilltucker 17:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highland Park, New Jersey

You will note that your project page now has a tag indicating that the project is being considered for deletion. I note as well that I did not put the tag there, and that I actually supported the project's not being deleted, on the provision that it established some other goals than simply creating pages for every street in the city. As already indicated, such material is outside the scope of wikipedia and readily eligible for deletion. I noted that you might try to implement some of the suggestions made in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide or other pages regarding how to best construct a project page, and I strongly urge you to do so. If the project is redesigned to be more in keeping with wikipedia guidelines, then I think it may well get through the MfD process revised, but viable. Otherwise, I think it may well face a consensus in favor of its deletion. Badbilltucker 15:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is to survive, the project page will have to be substantially reworked. You will have to indicate specific goals and tactics to achieve them which fall within wikipedia guidelines. Notable buildings, residents, history, and institutions (school districts, etc.) are generally the most widely accepted. Revise the project page to indicate that your intention is to pursue activities such as these, and then any future voters will see that the project has changed and will be more likely to vote to keep it. Badbilltucker 19:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: 1933 storm article

I don't think the article should be published as it is. It is still pretty much the same as what's in the season article, with only a few minor additions. Here's what's wrong with it.

1. The lede should be longer and not as repetitive. "It affected Cuba as a Category 2 hurricane and affected Mexico and Texas as a Category 3 hurricane killing 179 people." You shouldn't repeat so much in one sentence (you used affected twice and Category X hurricane twice). Expand it to two paragraphs, at least.
2. You should cite the NHC's Deadliest Atlantic hurricanes, not Weatherunderground, for the casualties.
3. Are the numerous pressure reports important in the storm history? Typically, the way to measure the hurricane's strength is with its maximum sustained winds. Very few people use pressure, especially when saying useless things like "At the time, Eleven was the strongest storm of the season untill the next storm became the strongest at 948 mbar".
4. You can't call the hurricane "Eleven". It had no name. Therefore, you'll have to call it "the hurricane" or something like that.
5. What does this mean? "in Hidalgo County, Mercedes" Hidalgo County, Mercedes is not a place. Furthermore, it's not needed. "The hurricane made landfall just to the north of Brownsville" will suffice.
6. "The system rapidly weakened as it moved through southern Texas and northeastern Mexico, and dissipated within 24 hours of making landfall over the mainland, over "The Borderline" which is the border of Mexico and Texas. The thirty-fifth and final advisory was released when Eleven was a minimal tropical storm status of 40 mph winds." You're trying waaay too hard to extend the article. The first sentence is useless, inaccurate, and poorly worded after the word "landfall". "The Borderline"? Why would you put it in quotes, and why would you include it? The term is very unofficial, and it's already implied the hurricane dissipated in northeastern Mexico. The next sentence very inaccurate. How do you know it had 35 advisories on it? For your information, the Weather Bureau issued advisories for hurricanes twice a day, and their best tracks were later extrapolated and interpolated based on more research.
7. In the preparations section, you should include when the Weather Bureau issued hurricane warnings.
8. The impact section is poorly made. You should organize the impact by area, not just random collections of sentences. You need a source for "Many weak buildings were destoyed, most of them at Harlingen, Texas." Again, you use Hidalgo County, Mercedes. Typically, one uses a City, X County format. "Many businessmen who expected more severe damage were angry with the meteorologist in charge of the Corpus Christi station, though the National Weather Bureau assured the preparations were needed and saved lives. 90 percent of the citrus crop was destroyed in LRGV." needs a source. What is LRGV? You need to explain acronyms in articles and expect the user to know what they mean. It seems like the "many businessmen" part isn't impact... more like aftermath. Try and find more aftermath to make a section for it.
9. The trivia section should be removed. Trivia is not needed for hurricane articles. The first "trivia" fact, "The hurricane became was the fifth and final storm of the 1933 season to hit Texas, a record held on for 73 years." is very vague, incorrect, and sourceless. Taking a quick look at the best track, it was the only hurricane to hit Texas in the year, along with two tropical storms. The other trivia fact, "Hurricane Eleven ranks 10th on the list of most intense hurricanes to enter the Gulf Coast with the minimum pressure of 949 mbar (28.03 inHg). It is behind Betsy (1965), Dennis (2005), Ivan (2004), Frederic (1979), Allen (1980), Celia (1970), Audrey (1957), Opal (1995), Rita (2005), Carla (1961), Katrina (2005), Camille (1969) & several unnamed storms." is incorrect and important as well. Taking a quick look, it is twentieth on the list. Something in twentieth place doesn't deserve a mention.

Overall, the article is not needed at the moment. If you expand on it, fix the errors, and find an impact picture, it could serve a purpose, but right now, it is a near duplicate of what's in the season article. Hurricanehink (talk)

Still some things. You still use the word "borderline", referring to Mexico/USA. That term is unofficial, and not needed. The picture, while a good find, is not available for use. They don't specify a copyright status, and, as thus, it can't be used. Also, the website doesn't say the damage was caused by this hurricane. How do you know the image wasn't of one of the other hurricanes in the season to hit Cuba? I'm still not convinced there's a need for a separate article. The key to making a new article is determining whether there's enough information. If that is all of the information out there on the storm, there's not enough, as the season article can handle it. You still need more impact and aftermath (in fact, only the first sentence in the aftermath is actually aftermath of the storm, the rest is impact) if this is to be published. Otherwise, the storm section in the season article suffices. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:1914 Atlantic hurricane season buttons

Template:1914 Atlantic hurricane season buttons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Coredesat talk! 07:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cuba1933Hurricane.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cuba1933Hurricane.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)