User talk:E. Brown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of a sudden, sky and sea roared as one. Then there was silence and all was in ruins.

HURRICANE ERIC ADVISORY ARCHIVE 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Contents

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Natural Selection album cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Natural Selection album cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter — Issue XXII (December 2007)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXII (December 2007)
Project news
Articles of note

New featured articles:

  1. Battle of Albuera
  2. Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081)
  3. Battle of the Gebora
  4. Constantine II of Scotland
  5. Francis Harvey
  6. Vasa (ship)
  7. Wulfhere of Mercia

New A-Class articles:

  1. 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing
  2. Evacuation of East Prussia
Current proposals and discussions
Awards and honors
  • Blnguyen has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his efforts in improving the quality of articles related to Vietnamese military history, including the creation of numerous A-Class articles.
  • Woodym555 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on topics related to the Victoria Cross, notably including the creation of featured articles, featured lists, and a featured topic.
  • For their outstanding efforts as part of Tag & Assess 2007, Bedford, TomStar81, and Parsival74 have been awarded the gold, silver, and bronze Wikis, respectively.
Tag & Assess 2007

Tag & Assess 2007 is now officially over, with slightly under 68,000 articles processed. The top twenty scores are as follows:

1. Bedford — 7,600
2. TomStar81 — 5,500
3. Parsival74 — 5,200
4. FayssalF — 3,500
5. Roger Davies — 3,000
6. Ouro — 2600
7. Kateshortforbob — 2250
8. Cromdog — 2,200
9. BrokenSphere — 2000
9. Jacksinterweb — 2,000
9. Maralia — 2,000
12. MBK004 — 1,340
13. JKBrooks85 — 1,250
14. Sniperz11 — 1100
15. Burzmali — 1000
15. Cplakidas — 1000
15. Gimme danger — 1000
15. Raoulduke471000
15. TicketMan — 1000
15. Welsh — 1000
15. Blnguyen — 1000

Although the drive is officially closed, existing participants can continue tagging until January 31 if they wish, with the extra tags counting towards their tally for barnstar purposes.

We'd like to see what lessons can be learned from this drive, so we've set up a feedback workshop. Comments and feedback from participants and non-participants alike are very welcome and appreciated.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.


Note: This newsletter was automatically delivered. Regards from the automated, Anibot (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Discrepancies

I've been using this link, which also said Carol was a Category 3. Also one thing to note: HURDAT is done by the Hurricane Research Division, which is separate from the National Hurricane Center. As such, there might be some discrepancies, until the re-analysis is done some time this century. How should we deal with our articles? Pray that we'll all be alive by the time HURDAT is finished and relax then :) Cheers. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, the NHC? IMO, if HURDAT reports provide higher wind speeds, we should use them. Otherwise, we'll use the max speed in the best track. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
It just so happens that I had this problem with another user a few days ago. The way I should've done Carol was to put in ≥115 mph, as I do personally believe that HURDAT listing Category 3 status means winds were 115 mph. You do realize, though, that the link I provided above was also a work of HURDAT? (most people in our community use Hurdat and best track synonymously, but they are not). Perhaps this would be a discussion more suited for the WPTC talk page? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we've been using the preliminary HURDAT papers in the WPTC occassionally, such as the pre-1851 hurricanes, storms from 1915-1930 (released by HURDAT, but not approved by NHC), and those papers. I'm just not sure how much we've been doing so. While I'm posting here, I'll bring up an example. A user cited a preliminary HURDAT paper for the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane hitting Florida with 130 kt winds on the List of Florida hurricanes page. What do you think should be done? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that's where you and I differ. I feel just as comfortable using the range than an exact wind speed. If the original HURDAT said 60 kt peak winds, and an updated paper says it had winds of Category 1 status, or even if it just a hurricane, then that is huge, since the cyclone reached a whole new level for category. Likewise if the original said it was a 65 kt hurricane, and a Re-analysis paper said it was only a TS. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, if we're going to use the new data anyway, than ranges are acceptable. So, given that we both disagree, shall we take it to the WPTC talk page? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Blockbuster

Wow... Great synopsis of the storm, and I can't wait for the project to get online. I wish you the best of luck with it. Having written on several of the deadliest storms (Mitch, Georges, Great Hurricane, to name a few), I know how hard it can be in writing on how many deaths there were, and it's sad when people see the death tolls as merely a number. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that's one way to look at it, but mostly I meant how real people are affected by the storms. For Camille... truly incredible is all I can say. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, though I had to based on how pathetic it was before I got to it. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SunburnCover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SunburnCover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SunburnCover.jpg

See WP:FURG, you need to add and fill out the template. Megapixie (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Portion = how much of the image. In this case "all". Low resolution = yes (i.e. around 300 pixels - a thumbnail). Megapixie (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That looks okay to may. Megapixie (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Stat

Wow, truly incredible. Quick question, though. How did you come up with that death total? I came up with about 2000. That'd be a good stat for the History of the United States (since 1988), or even in both of the lede of the 2004 and 2005 seasons. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I went with the 1800 figure for Katrina. I don't think there are 800 people still missing, more than two years after the storm. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll get to it... ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I know NCDC has plenty of info, and there are abundant NWS reports. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I can't wait for the hall of fame to get online :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Good luck. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
For a user page, it might be a little large, particularly since it might be more than one page, but if anyone says anything, just say that big brother is guarding your back. ;) --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If it's going to be less than 100 kb, I'd just put it on one page. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Well, that's huge, then. :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Hall of Fame

Very nice! All in all, though, it looks great. Technically speaking I have one qualm, in that some of the images overlap and create a lot of white space. Also, I thought the Great Hurricane of 1780 was in there... ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize you said only since 1800, but I figured the deadliest Atlantic hurricane on record would warrant its place in the hall :) My recommendation - this June, have two sets of nominations. One for Atlantic storms (maybe pick 3 out of a list of 10 - hell, there are tons of Atlantic storms still worthy to get into the hall), and start with the global project with EPAC nominees. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For contributing so much to the article Hurricane Ivan, I User Swirlex award you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar.

[edit] Re: My page

Thanks for the compliments. Here's the clarification about Hazel's winds. The 100 mph winds in the Mid-Atlantic region is based on a combination of the MWR, HURDAT, and other sources. The 1954 MWR lists peak gusts of 90 mph "from the Carolinas through New York," and other sources list high wind speeds and damages in Ontario, Canada. Additionally, the best track data indicates maximum sustained winds of 100 mph when Hazel was inland over North Carolina. Although HURDAT has numerous inaccuracies, the data seems consistent with the MWR and the fact that peak winds are usually unmeasured in cyclones. I apologize for the flowery additions to your excellent HHOF, but some of your storms feature unconventional writing and present POV. For example, Opal apparently "inhaled a pocket of dry air" and Andrew was a person who "made no mystery of his intentions." Additionally, I thought it adequately addressed the unique nature of the inductees. I wanted to add more facts if they conformed to your personal preferences; it's fair. In exchange, I recently reverted some vandalism on your user page. I've also started a personal list of unofficial Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. Here you go; hopefully, you'll enjoy it when I'm finished. It's slightly similar to your Hall of Fame. CVW (Talk) 23:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Hall of Fame for 2008

Thanks for the breaking news story. Yes Eric, we're now at the halfway point between the end of last season and the beginning of the next season. In a few weeks we should find out which names are retired from last year. Those five storms are certainly appropriate for automatic inclusion. When will the nominees be ready for the rest of the inductees, and will there be any outside of the Atlantic?? Live from New Jersey, this has been Hurricanehink. 00:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I suck at waiting. <!-- --> But yea, if I were in charge of nominating some storms for the EPAC list, this is what I'd put in (note: I merely added a lot of storms to allow for a wide variety of choices). 1858 San Diego hurricane, 1939 California tropical storm, 1959 Mexico hurricane, 1975 unnamed hurricane, Liza 76, Madeline 76, Paul 82, Iwa 82, Ekeka 92, Iniki 92, John 94, Ismael 95, Linda 97, Pauline 97, Paka 97, Elida 02, Kenna 02, Adrian 05, Ioke 06, and 2006 Central Pacific cyclone. Unfortunately, I can't think of any others that should be in a Hall of Fame, and finding that list of 20 was a bit of a stretch. An interesting idea would be to have users nominate one storm from each basin (other than Atlantic and EPAC) for each year. If they pick a poor nomination, you could veto it, but think of it - if you could only pick one storm from the NIO, it would have to be pretty notable. Your call, though. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding not being US biased, I just think that the "storm that leaves such an impact that it echos through time" depends on where you are. A person in Bermuda will surely think Fabian as the worst storm on record; likewise with Juan in Canada. Good idea with the voting. Oh, and BTW, I tried hard to get a larger list of EPAC names, so obviously there were some lesser notable ones. And yea, I've seen those wallets before. I'm hoping they'll get some more wallets done before the season starts, as the relevant section on here indicates such data is available for every storm from 1958 to the present in the Atlantic. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, sorry! I try and be the calming one. But yea, if we give each voter the list, and tell them to pick 3, then we could take the top 5 or so. Should the first round of voting just be the EPAC, or should there be a list of like 15 worldwide storms (outside of Atlantic)? <!-- --> It's your call, though. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Okeydoke - this is without looking at yours. <!-- --> But yea, I'd start off with the EPACs this year. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Argh. OK, that works about Ioke. Hurricane Tara is a good candidate, but I find it odd there is next to no information on it, anywhere. I'm not going to do a Wiki crusade until I find more info, but for such a deadly storm, surely there would be some good supporting references. I have a sneaky suspicion there was an error in attributing those deaths to Tara. According to the Hurricane Archive, an initial report on the death toll for Hurricane Hattie was about 500, which was two weeks after Hattie struck. For clarification, Hattie crossed into the EPAC and struck southeastern Mexico, and two weeks later Tara struck Mexico. That's just one I don't feel very keen on. Regarding the 1858 San Diego hurricane, I don't want to see two candidates for the same, similar reason (1858 vs. 1939 in terms of a California landfall). I feel the 1939 California storm is much more deserving, given how recent it is, as well as how deadly and damaging it was. The 1975 hurricane was certainly interesting. HOF worthy? That's debatable. Unusual location is on par with me on intensity. One thing I have against the storm is that it might not be the only one of its kind. There was the cyclone back in November of 2006, which was further north. Had it been classified, it would've been a strong tropical storm only a few hundred miles south of Alaska. I haven't done a detailed search of the archives, but simply on the basis of the 2006 one I'd say no. That comes down to Liza. That would've been my #11. So, if you remove my Ioke, I'll replace it with Liza. Now that I've made yours look bad, I'll make mine look good. Regarding Linda, it has held that record for over 10 years. If something comes along and beats, hell, we could have a vote whether to remove it. However, I think it deserves a place as a nomination, as the previous record was a full 13 mb higher than Linda's minimum. John is the longest-lived tropical cyclone worldwide. I think any important worldwide record deserves, at the very least, a nomination. Kenna's intensification rate was pretty incredible (not quite Wilma, but remember, this isn't the Atlantic). The first advisory predicted a minimal tropical storm within 72 hours; at the 72 hour mark, Kenna was a Cat. 5. It underwent the official designation of explosive deepening, which the article says is rarely observed in the Western Hemisphere. Kenna was the second most intense tropical cyclone in EPAC history, and was the third most intense hurricane to strike Mexico. Also, it was retired, which itself is a rarity in the EPAC. Good luck reading that, Eric, and it's your move now :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
That sounds very fair. Now that's what I call a bi-partisan compromise! :) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. A several page paper is always tough, but good luck with that. I'd say maybe go for 10 total, meaning us plus 8 more. Ten is a nice number. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that admins are typically overworked and under-appreciated. Regarding the people, I was also thinking Mitchazenia, Juliancolton, Seddon69, CWY2190, and Hello32020, for a total of 10 voters. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
My last two choices aren't terribly active any more in the WPTC (though they still edit occassionally). Seddon69 is active on the IRC channel, and he talks tropical cyclones every day. It's your call. You're the prez in this little gang. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good; now work on that paper! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You should give me more credit. I'm a smart guy, after all, and it took me maybe 5 milliseconds to debunk your code ;) Looks good though. When will you send out the ballots? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh. I opt to be surprised for when you show me the Atlantic nominations tomorrow. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. Let's hope the voting process will end without any bipartisan warfare ;) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Anarchy or monarchy is really the best form of government. Look how successful the great empires were in history. ;) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's hope you don't end up like the French monarchs just prior to Napoleon. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks good, and here comes a big "Ooooooh" from me. Ooooooh, I didn't realize that you'd be doing ballots separately. I thought you'd be doing one grand ballot (with like 3 votes for EPAC and 5 for Atlantic), like this year being the year of having Atlantic with Pacific. Now I see your madness method, and I like splitting them up. Yea, that works well. You should send it out today. And remember, the point of the HoF, in your words, are "something to lower stress levels", so don't get upset if you forget to do it ;) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Hall of Fame Voting

Here are my votes. (Commented out encoded to retain secrecy) <!-- --> ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice, and that works. I can't wait to see the results. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My votes are **encoded** BTW, thanks! It took my a while to design that, but it looks cool. :) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, it is a cool signature. ;) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for asking me! Following Hink, I'll also encode my votes. All votes are in SNBR. <!-- --> -- RattleMan 02:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised you didn't figure out my scheme! Think the "big database". -- RattleMan 02:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Haumea

Did Mike Brown say which daughters? I assume not Pele, but there are several others. kwami (talk) 04:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I see he didn't. kwami (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I added a good external link at Haumea in case you're still curious. kwami (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 1949 Storm

Interesting... The article on List of natural disasters by death toll narrows it down to Eastern Guatemala. This unofficial site confirms that the hurricane "devastated the Yukatan Penisnsula, Honduras and Guatemala". However, there is no evidence the hurricane was definitely responsible for it, and not just a contributing factor. Maybe it's worthy of bringing attention to the NHC? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I got a response from Eric, regarding this system. He did some digging, and mentioned the worst of the flooding was October 19-21, which is too delayed from the cyclone impact to be considered direct. However, it could saturated the soil before another bout of rain set the flooding in motion. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats

I suppose that I'd might as well congratulate you on your graduation. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 16:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)