I know this is completely random but I still cannot believe that this storm killed 6,000 people. I just can't believe it. The Philippines have taken hits from innumerable stronger storms, even in that same season but they didn't cause near as much loss of life. I don't even see any extra-heavy rainbands in that storm like I have noticed in other devastating storms with lower wind speeds. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 23:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, but Gordon had huge, thick rainbands spreading far away from the center and the weird track meant that it was over the same place for a substantial amount of time. This was compact little storm that just breezed right on through. That's what's strange to me. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 05:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thelma was over the Philippines for about two days so that could explain it, but even that, I wouldn't expect such carnage from a storm that wasn't very large and didn't have very intense rainbands. In the Philippines, I wouldn't have been surprised by a 200-300 number, but 6,000? Jesus. I didn't think there were more than 10,000 total on all the affected islands. I would think you'd need a heavy storm surge or a massive, Category 5 hurricane to stall offshore to get that high of a death toll. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 19:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Jeez, like friggin' Bangladesh. I do remember hearing that there was heavy deforestation. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 01:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

November, 1970 - Half a million people - several thousand more missing - deadliest tropical cyclone in recorded history. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 01:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey there HH, I'm a panelist on Wikipedia Weekly the weekly wikipedia podcast [1]. You may have heard of us. Anyway, we're starting a new segment where we will try and interview interesting users/projects to feature some of the different aspects of WP. I was hoping we would be able to talk to you. Maybe a 5 minute piece on who you are and why you are so dedicated to all things hurricane! We record using Skype (so you would need that programme and a a broadband connection to participate) and can prerecord the interview at pretty much any time that is convenient for you. I've already mentioned you on episode 13, so I thought you'd like to come on the show. Tell me what you think, Witty lama 09:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Damn right he should have heard of us, I've mentioned it a couple of times on IRC. :P – Chacor 09:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC) reply

It's me again - are you still interested? Witty lama 00:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC) reply

The disturbance between Vietnam and the Philippines here looks pretty good. However this one's a closer call because at 6Z just the previous day, the storm doesn't appear to have a closed circulation and by 12Z later that day, it seems to have gotten extremely disorganized. My verdict is that it was a tropical depression that went undetected. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 23:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Can't find anything earlier than 2001 from PASAGA in terms of detail. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 01:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Here it is for you: User:Mitchazenia/Sandbox 5, Don't know what elae it needs. Just tell me. Mitch azenia 02:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Well I think its publishable at this point. Mitch azenia 14:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I have just joined the Tropical Cyclones Wikiproject. Although I am no expert in tropical meteorology (or, for that matter, anything else), I have had a fascination with tropical cyclones since (you guessed it) 2005. I am willing to help out in whatever way is most needed in improving articles related to tropical cyclones. I am also far from a computer nerd, but I am willing to gradually learn how to do more and more stuff on Wikipedia by examining edit pages of articles and maybe being asked to make improvements to articles of greater and greater technical difficulty (starting with a difficulty of about zero). Unless you have another idea about what I could get started on, I guess I'll start on whatever I think I am capable of that is highest on the todo list. Ev-Man 04:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the longest welcome I've ever received and I heartily appreciate it. To your question, I'm sorry that I couldn't answer right away because the idea of editing in a specific area hasn't visibly shaped in my mind. Also, I need time to familiarize with the structure of a storm-article so my contributions to the project may not come out immediately. However I'll try my best to keep up with the project activities and I look forward to receiving the advice from you and other members. Apple •_•w••o•_•r••m•_• 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Tropical Depression 15W sure looks like a tropical storm to me: upper right. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 22:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hink, i was going to write the Hurricane Bertha 1990 article. Storm05 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC) reply

You're supposed to be having fun - let us keep things in check for a while. ;) Have a nice holiday! Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 02:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

All right, will do that, just so you can relax. :P Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 19:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Done about half an hour ago. Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 19:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Weird. What is essentially a metadata revision was pointing back to the old version. That is strange. Anyways, I've rollbacked myself, and that dealt with the problem. Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 19:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Heh. Go have a coconut milkshake or something. :P (By the way, where did you go on vacation? Of course, if it can be known...) Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 19:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

So you can have a coconut shake... :D have fun. Go visit Avila if you have the chance. ;) Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 20:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the information links. It will make gethering the information much easier. Also, the names of some of the storms can be found on the NHC site in the Deadliest and Costliest US 1851-2004. [2] Hurricanewatcher 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Any storm that has been given a name before 1950 should be labeled as unnamed unless it has an article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hurricanewatcher ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC). reply

Ok, so i have to de-wikilink the Unnamed storms that are not on wikipedia, change the wikilinks of the Unnamed storms to the proper link and add the other storms. Thanks so much again. Hurricanewatcher 23:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

It's about time the great Hink took a vacation. Haha. Hope you enjoy Florida! I sure am. ;) →Cycl one1→ 23:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, it is. →Cycl one1→ 19:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply

That's fine. It's your own personal preference when it comes to judging the accuracy of the experts' assessments. However, you should be having fun rather than boring yourself with my random musings ;) But a few minutes ago I found the Holy Grail of hurricane images. The minute I saw that, my eyes about popped out of their sockets. Hard to really describe this one. It's pretty incredible. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 16:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC) reply

God, I love looking at high-res pics of monster hurricanes. For me it's like looking at a beautiful woman: fun to watch, but if you try to touch it, it will kill you :D. My time of greatest pressure is on the computer. Despite my levity, I'm not in a great mood right now. One of my hurricane pic documents ('98 West Pac) is f-ed up. <rant>It just happens to be the one I was working on. I try to open it and it whines that their's not enough disk space to display or print the pics, which is BS, because I've open like 4 or 5 other documents that are just fine. The copy on my backup drive isn't working either, which makes me suspect biological weapons may be involved. I'm running a virus scan right now. If I have to redo the whole document, I'm going to be really pissed. It takes hours to do those. Anyway </rant>, the trip to Orlando will a welcome from the sweatshop of life's grueling monotony. I'm leaving tomorrow. Keep enjoying your vacation! -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok. I got one of only two comments made involving the TC rainfall page going to GA, which mentioned splitting off various articles due to its size. Now you're telling me it's not big enough? How much more information are you looking for in this page? Enlighten me. Thegreatdr 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Nice response. It was exactly what I was needing to know. I have added Guam, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico information into the US page since they're all US territories. If we ever get information for American Samoa, we'll include that in the US and general TC rainfall articles. I'm leaving the Guam table in the main page since a number of people may not realize it is part of the US. I have a spreadsheet at work that has the maxima per state (which needs some updating) and will look into a way of placing it on the main HPC TC rainfall climo website. Thegreatdr 19:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I know you're the master here...I was just curious as to if your'e going to put up Hurricane Isabel and its related effects articles at FTC, as there are several FAs and a pile of GAs. Phoenix Two 04:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC) reply

I was surprised of how sloppy the Hurricane Hazel article is, could you please fix up the hurricane hazel article?

Hi Hurricanehink, I would be honored to join the ranks of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject contributors, thank you so much for the invite!! I have amassed vast amounts of information on virtually every aspect of Tropical Cyclones over the years, not to mention my personal interception and documentation of numerous Atlantic basin storms from the last 25 years, including many of the more infamous hurricanes. I'll certainly try my best to help provide clarification and details in whatever areas I can. I personally have a TON of archived information relating to historical Florida, Caribbean and Gulf hurricanes...including many hard-to-find texts and publications, so I may be able to provide a lot of really cool info.

Thank you so much for the compliment on my website! It is definiely a work-in-progress, but it is coming along...haha.

As for the Hurricane Elena eye photos, after all the years that I've been chasing and many other direct eye interceptions that I've made, Elena's is still the most amazing eye passage (from the ground) that I have ever witnessed! It was unbelievably AMAZING to experience...absolutely a textbook eye, it felt like being inside a recon flight (just at a very low altitude...hehe) A perfectly clear area of blue sky directly above, surrounded by a crisp white eyewall, visible in all directions. I just wish that high-definition camcorders were available back in 1985, it's sad to think of how amazing that footage would have been with the quality available from today's cameras.

Anyway, with the Wikiproject, I'm basically new to this environment so I'm testing out the waters by playing around with my personal user page. I did make my first foray into an article edit last night, adding a bit more detail to the Hurricane Andrew statistics section. I'm just a little uncertain about making other changes... as an example, I noticed that the current "satellite" image on the Hurricane Donna article is incorrect, I know that picture was published as "Figure 4-B" in a revised edition of the book "Florida Hurricanes & Tropical Storms", and is cited as being provided "courtesy of the National Hurricane Center". In reality, it is actually a AVHRR image of Hurricane Alicia in 1983 (just before landfall at Galveston, Texas) superimposed over a McIDAS satellite grid of South Florida. Here's a link to an Alicia AVHRR image, from almost the same time... Hurricane Alicia AVHRR. If I'm not mistaken, the composite graphic was indeed put together by the NHC, but only as part of a presentation that was given at the 1984 National Hurricane Conference (in Tampa, Florida) to show a "What if" scenario, and was actually intended to represent something more akin to the size of the 1935 'Labor Day' Hurricane. I'm not sure how it got published as being "Donna" but I guess stranger things have happened.

Anyway, there are random things like that running around in my brain...so, if I can put them to good use here, all the better. Anyway, as I become more familiar with how to do things, I'll try to be a more prolific contributor. I'm going to seek out information to help me learn the ropes. That said, is there anything specific I need to do to join the TC Wikiproject?

On the subject of chasing, since you're up in NJ, did you get any effects from Isabel? Either way, I'm sure you'll get into the middle of one at some point. And speaking from experience, if you think your love of hurricanes is bad now, wait till you get into your first big one in the tropics...haha.

Thanks again for the invite and I look forward to seeing you around and helping where I can. Feel free to comment any time.

-- Michael Laca 02:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks again...I'll join right away! I'll definitely make sure that anything I do is sourced and that the appropriate citation/reference is included. I figured that would be necessary, so I had already included sources with my Andrew edits last night.

You're absolutely correct, Elena had filled by about 8mb from the 951mb minimum the previous afternoon, to the 959mb landfall pressure. But, even so, the structure of the storm remained completely intact and at between Ocean Springs (to our east) and my location at Biloxi, the eye passage was just stellar. During the western eyewall we had very turbulent conditions with peak winds of about 120 mph from the north-northeast. The winds went down to about 5-10mph during the eye, never a complete calm. Then after the eye, during the eastern eyewall, the winds peaked betwen 80-100 mph, even though at that point they were onshore...probably because the storm was well inland and weakening rapidly at that point.

Believe me, I wish more than anyone that satellite photos existed for Hurricane Donna, it's one of my all time favorite storms. But, beyond the fact that I was at the 1984 Hurricane Conference and saw the presentation where the composite image was shown, there are numerous other reasons why this satellite image can't be Donna:

• In 1960, weather satellite imagery was completely brand new, the very first image being sent only five months before Donna's landfall. The quality of those original TIROS I images was nowhere near that of the image that's currently on the Donna article and they didn't have topography outlines back then (unless someone drew them in by hand).
• Donna was a significantly larger hurricane than what is shown in that image based on radar presentations from Miami and Key West.
• Donna's center crossed the Keys near Marathon, due north of the position of the storm shown in the photo (the composite image shows the storm over the Florida Straits, mid-way between Cuba and the Keys)... extrapolating a northwest motion from where the photo shows the center would have Donna crossing the Keys somewhere between Big Pine and Key West.
• Most importantly, there was no IR imagery in 1960, only visible light. Given that Donna crossed the Keys in the middle of the night (near 0300 UTC), there is no way, in 1960, that there could have been any imagery at that time.

I'll definitely post these points on the Donna talk page, and see if I can find another cool high-quality image to take its place.

Thanks again for all the help, I read your user page and saw all your contributions, that's absolutely amazing!! How do you find the time...haha?!? Anyway, it's great to have a resource as proficient as you to help. If there's ever anything I can do to help you... if you need help answering a question, need help validating something, need an image, etc... I'll do my best to help.

-- Michael Laca 06:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah you're totally correct. It always seems that with Northern Gulf hurricanes, the southern portions of the eyewall are always open and/or eroding at the time of landfall (Carmen, Frederic, Opal, Lili, Ivan, Katrina, etc...) Elena was definitely an exception. Maybe because it was much smaller in size, compared to some of the other storms, or maybe partially due to the direction of its approach? It's hard to say for sure. Either way, Elena's structure, just before landfall, looked just as good, if not better, than it did when it was at its peak the day before. And in actuality, until landfall, the storm wasn't really weakening all that fast. The 8mb rise in pressure was over an 18hr period, with the last 3-4mb occuring only after the northern portion of the eye was already onshore, but before the geometric center crossed the coast. So, in my opinion, Elena was in more of a leveled-off 'steady-state' mode at landfall in Mississippi. Here is a sequence (although less than spectacular quality) of radar images from the Pensacola and Slidell sites, during the landfall period. Image #1 (NPA) is about 5hrs after Elena's peak intensity of 951mb. Image #2 (SLI) shows the very impressive radar presentation of Elena, as the core began moving over coastal Mississippi. In Image #3 (NPA), you can see the sharply defined eye and eyewall, just minutes before it moved over my location. Finally Image #4 shows Elena well inland and weakening rapidly, but still retaining an excellent structure, even though the eye has completely filled. The very famous space shuttle image of Elenawas also taken just prior to landfall in Mississippi, so the excellent organization of the storm is evident there too.

It sucks about the Donna image, I really wish there were more satellite images from some of those earlier storms. I did find some previously unknown (to me) images of Donna from the University of Miami's radar. And, I also made this cool composite animation out of some still radar images of Donna. I'm always looking to increase my collection of historical hurricane photos, so, if you ever find any online, or anywhere else, please let me know.

Anyway, thanks again for being so welcoming! =^D If you ever want to chat directly feel free to send me an e-mail through the contact link on my website. I'm looking forward to being part of the team. Take care. -- Michael Laca 18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Do you plan on working on this, cause for my 25th article, which i promise to make my best, I wanted to do Chris '82 and its not even on your list, so can I work on it? Mitch azenia 15:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC) reply

You put the article on hold on March 5th, and have not acted since. You also forgot to leave notice of the Hold at WP:GAC. Could you please pass or fail the article ASAP, as we are trying to clear the backlog at GAC, as well an article should not be put on hold for more than 7 days. Thank you for your attention to this. -- Jayron32| talk| contribs 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply

More like I removed the hold, so someone else would give it the third opinion. Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 19:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC) reply

We are an active part of the Key West Fan club base for Mister Buffett please stop removing our Template as this is Homophobic Vandalism If you disagree with our projects them simply ignore them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cr8tiv ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC). reply

I seriously cant believe he just said that to you... ORLRDVXL 13:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I couldn't believe it either, but hey, I got a laugh out of it :) Hurricanehink ( talk) 13:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Just by curiousity what else does the season need for FA status?

And for the two articles in existance:

Hurricane Alicia

Hurricane Barry (1983)

What do they need for B to GA class? Mitch azenia 20:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry, you're my idol, didn't mean to offend you. And I am citewebbing Alicia. Mitch azenia 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I saw what you had to deal with as to this user Cr8tiv. He appears to be a sockpuppet for user Benji1996, as they've been vandalizing some of the same pages, several times with the same sort of material (and neither one signs talk page entries). I haven't reported it yet because there isn't a ton of evidence thus far, but may I suggest that if you notice the same you let me know? Thanks in advance. 1995hoo

Who knows? 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988, and 1989 currently have at least 4 articles in their seasons. If I ever finish the articles, then we'll see what happens. Thanks for the compliment though on the infoboxes, what pains they are. My AWB went down, which really sucks. I was gonna use that instead to save me some work. Mitch azenia 19:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

My priority is to do the 4 subarticles and seasonal article of 1982 first, i'd like to see Debby and STS 1 reach GA-status. Mitch azenia 19:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Could I ask of a favor? Hold off on FA nominating Alberto until STS1, Beryl and Debby are at least GA? Mitch azenia 19:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I have a set in my newest sandbox for Debby that you might recoginize me doing before, but Core and Nilfanion don't want me using technical stuff in the article. Opinion? Mitch azenia 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

They were going to go into the HHA's (P-3s) section because that's what they are based on, but I can't finish because I can't access AMS stuff lately. Mitch azenia 20:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

<---I have a gut feeling that Beryl ain't gonna have any more info than it already does, Google and The Hurricane Archive are not helping and if anything, I'll suggest a merge. Mitch azenia 23:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Or so they say. Strange disease indeed... Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 05:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Your Imperial Majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these imperial triple crown jewels in gratitude for your contributions to Wikipedia. May you wear them well. Durova ^Charge! 03:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

On 8 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1903 Vagabond Hurricane, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- howcheng { chat} 23:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Just to confirm I have deleted User:Hurricanehink/2005 Atlantic hurricane season rewrite, User:Hurricanehink/Close, but not quite storms, User:Hurricanehink/Deadly Hurricanes, User:Hurricanehink/Cyclone Mala, User:Hurricanehink/Hurricane Juliette (2001), User:Hurricanehink/List of tropical cyclone deaths by region, User:Hurricanehink/Nicole98, User:Hurricanehink/Sandbox, User:Hurricanehink/Sandbox2 and User:Hurricanehink/Scholarship per your request on IRC.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 21:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Same with the hurricanes last time around - type=typhoon should not be capitalised as type=Typhoon. – Chacor ( RIP 96) 02:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure we should use the new infobox on Tracy. Because the old infobox gusts were "≥217 km/h", and we could input that it was a cat4. However, using the new infobox and putting the gusts as EXACTLY 115 kt (which it isn't), gives cat3. – Chacor ( RIP 96) 02:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Look at this storm east of florida, it even got an eye!. (will this becomes Andrea?, only the NHC can find out) right now all we can do is watch as the storm appears to be strengthing. Storm05 18:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 07:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Go for it. I doubt I would've ever done it, even though I wanted to. I just don't have the same patience I used to. icelandic hur ric ane #12 _(talk) 23:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I finally responded to the Hermine debate, and you both have a valid point. I try not to play favorites. I left information on that page that should be considered within that debate, but it is really not my place to insert my opinion...just how subjective determining storm total rainfall can be, both within HPC and TPC. Thegreatdr 17:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply

No apology is necessary. I understand the predicament I've placed myself by being an active contributor to wikipedia...I discussed this with my manager at work last year in case he had issues. There may be a day when NOAA either comes up with a non-interference policy, or fully embraces, wikipedia. Until they send some dictate, I'm here. Thegreatdr 19:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I think I know Mike from the early 1990's...he used to chase with Jim Leonard, I believe. I just sent him a message through his talk page. Thegreatdr 19:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply

On 7 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hurricane Tico (1983), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Carabinieri 13:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Hurricanehink, you tagged Image:Typhoon Paka.gif for deletion because it's on the Commons, but I can't seem to find it there. Is there a spelling mistake on the tag you placed on the image? If you let me know what the image name is on Commons, I'll delete the WP one. Cheers, – Riana _ऋ 06:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Ah, OK! That's fine :) – Riana _ऋ 13:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, Hink. Long time admirer of your work on Wikipedia. Could you please check the Katrina info on this page that seems to be significantly lacking. You seem to be the main editor of all things hurricane and I figured you could do the best job with this. Thanks! And it looks like hurricane season is striking early this year. Looks like you'll be busy. JHMM13 01:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Ah it all makes sense now. Thanks! JHMM13 04:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply

The article Typhoon Matsa you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Typhoon Matsa for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. -- Xiaphias 08:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Whats up man... Anyway, I hope your doing good. I cant believe you came to Florida and didn't tell me. Anyway, it will be a pleasure writig with you this year. Besides dealing with damn admins I had fun last year. ORLRDVXL 13:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

[3] This is the mid-November storm mentioned in the other storms section of the '96 article. Looks pretty good to me but I don't have enough info to make a verdict on it. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 22:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Um, sorry to barge in, but I think they meant this storm. This little "Catarina of the North" is actually on its way out in this picture, having had an eye a few days earlier on 11/18/1991 12:00UTC. It kept its tropical characteristics for about three days. Cycl one1(01:44-12-05-2007)

I have modified the topic based on requests to establish a stronger lead article. Please take a look if you get the chance, and see if this is acceptable. Judgesurreal777 18:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Im new to wiki but not new to wiki Ive edited for years but nvr had a talk page...would you mind showing me how to get those box things on ma page. I posted a comment on a page and you were the first person i clicked on afterwards. Thas all chap thnx LadySovereignFan 06:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Lifted autoblock of 66.230.200.146 Request handled by: Core desat 21:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm blocked too. Thegreatdr 21:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Uh, if you're blocked, then you could only edit your talk page... Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 21:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Maybe it was just lifted. Sometimes I can edit, sometimes I cannot. Thegreatdr 21:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Wonder what happened? I got one also, but just for about 1/4 of a minute. Weird. Mitch azenia 21:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#MAJOR IP issues describes the situation, and the links there. Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 23:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I will likely compile a spreadsheet, one way or the other. The rain was mainly confined to southeast Georgia and the Carolinas. It might have rained an inch over a few days while it was still extratropical and subtropical...I remember seeing one location with about 2/3 of an inch. It won't appear on the web until at least Monday, since I'm on a long weekend off right now. =) Thegreatdr 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Be gentle, this is my second attempt at a GA review. I'm following up on a comment made months ago that others within the project should take more of a role of reviewing articles within the project. Since my contributions to the article were minimal at best, I figured "why not?" Thegreatdr 02:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC) reply

NRL is screwed over. It keeps redirecting me to the homepage and it's really pissing me off. I've been trying anyway I can to subvert it but it's creeping past annoying. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 16:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply

[whispering] They need to get their sh*t together In other news. Did you see that UNISYS has redesigned itself. I personally liked the old one better but whatever. I was just wondering if you've noticed. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC) reply

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{ GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. -- Nehrams2020 01:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC) reply

What do you mean it's not relevant to the main article? It absolutely is. That's a very impressive statistic. I spent time and effort into researching that, rather than just Googling everything, which seems to be very popular on Wikipedia nowadays. Would you care to elaborate on how that would be so irrelevant to the main article as to require removal? -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 03:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply

"It is also included in 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics, which suffices in its inclusion." Is it really? That's a good reason for removal, if so. I used the Perpetual Calendar to find out the 2005 calendar and used the dates provided by the National Hurricane Center, which do not include the extratropical or remnant low stages. Only the Best Tracks, which are in the reports, include that. Not even the dates in the report header include them and frankly I don't know why the best track does. I'm not sure why you see the stat as trivial. The fact that only two weeks out of 25 didn't have a storm active is impressive. 2004 for example (as requested :) was completely inactive for over a month between the dissipation of Subtropical Storm Nicole on October 12 and the formation of Tropical Storm Otto on November 30. For a 126 day stretch in '05, only 16 days didn't have a storm active and never more than three consecutive. To me, that statistic shows just how active 2005 really was. It's one thing to have 28 storms over an extended period, but quite another to have that [points emphatically]. I could almost list the inactive days and not bore people, that's how few there were. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 04:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I used official resources. If that's original research then using that to determine a record is original research too. For the sake of Wikipedia, I hope they don't see that as original research, as they define it. I could probably find that record out, but it will take a lot of work and it won't mean anything if some dirtbag takes it off because he thinks I'm pulling it out of my ass or it's against some archaeic, Ten Commandments, Thou-shalt-not rule of the Higher Beings. All of it's good information, but I've learned from experience that that's not always good enough for Wikipedia. I replaced the description on the statistics page with the one I left on your talk page, which I think is more effective. It doesn't focus as much on the weeks. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 04:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Unbelievable!

Desperate to find a season that could top 2005 in terms of the fewest inactive days and finding none in the Atlantic basin, I jumped to the West Pacific. 1964, the most active season in the recorded history of the planet: 39 storms. Surely that season beats the crap out of '05 ATL. They are exactly equal over the same time period (June 1-Nov 30)! 51 all! 51 days is the magic number. § Hurricane E RIC § archive 06:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Update: I have just confirmed statistically that the 1997 Western Pacific Typhoon Season was the most insane, incomprehensible, awe-inspiring display of the raw power of nature. Between June 1 and November 30 of that year, the Western Pacific saw just 36 quiet days! Two solid months of activity plus all but one day in June pretty much iced it. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 06:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Shouldn't be too difficult. Another note: I did not included the disturbance stages. I took them out, but this is always a messy business because it involves a lot of personal judgement. There lies the real issue. -- § Hurricane E RIC § archive 21:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

Yutu didn't do much, not a great deal of info, so I'm not gonna make an article. If you do want to attempt one, here's NWS Guam's post-storm report... what little of it, that is. Not a lot of help. [4] – Chacor 15:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC) reply

I like the shows you have listed, but doesn't 24 come first alphabetically (at least in ASCII and Unicode)? - Bonus Onus 01:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, we decided to submit it. Mind helping us keep an eye on it? Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 19:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Can I do something like your "Wikipedia Hurricane Center Message"? Highwayboy 20:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Thanks! Highwayboy 00:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC) reply

It's me, I wasn't vandalizing I was putting what I believe the strength of the storm was by reading the articles and comparing them with similar strength storms. I apologize if this offended you and if this would count as incorrect info I will stop and will transfer this info to my wikia page.

~MagiMidnight / DekaMidnight

I left a post on the List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes talk page you might want to see. If you already know about it this article at the very least didn't. The Andrew article may need changing too, I haven't checked. -- E. Brown 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Didn't think it would require that much change and it has to happen anyway. I know I'm not exactly adding a ton of value by saying that though. -- § Hurricane E RIC archive 04:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I uploaded the map based on the data you gave me. However, the coordinates are rounded to the nearest half a degree which produced a rigid looking track. Reub2000 03:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC) reply

This is kind of cool. I made a timeline of hurricane history. I originally meant it to sound like the Geologic timescale but it ended up sounding more like a timeline of human history (example: Victorian Age). But here it is (keep in mind, I completely made this up):

Pre-Columbian Super-eon (<1492)

Columbian Eon (1492-1780)

The Spanish Era (1492-1609)

American Age (1492-1571)

Migration Epoch (1492-1526)

Slave Epoch (1527-1549)

Maritime Epoch (1550-1571)

Treasure Age (1571-1609)

Fleet Epoch (1571-1589)

British Epoch (1590-1609)

The Tempestian Era (1609-1700)

Shakesperian Age (1609-1635)

Blank Epoch (1609-1619)

First Antillean Epoch (1620-1635)

Caribbean Age (1635-1700)

Colonial Epoch (1635-1669)

Islandic Epoch (1670-1700)

The Augustinian Era (1700-1780)

Tropical Age (1700-1747)

Southeastern Epoch (1700-1719)

Second Antillean Epoch (1720-1747)

Coastal Age (1747-1780)

New World Epoch (1747-1765)

"The Terrible Years" (1766-1779)

The Eon of Revelation (1780-1998)

The Empty Era (1780-1853)

The Age of the Unknown (1780-1813)

Hadean Epoch (1780-1791)

Pax Tropicana (1792-1812)

The Age of Intrigue (1813-1853)

New Englandic Epoch (1813-1831)

Gulfean Epoch (1832-1853)

The Mythical Era (1853-1900)

Scholastic Age (1853-1875)

Last Island Epoch (1853-1863)

Saxbian Epoch (1863-1874)

Dark Age (1875-1900)

"Time of Tears" (1875-189)

Georgean Epoch (1891-1899)

The Galvestonian Era (1900-1998)

Floridian Age (1900-1949)

Black Epoch (1900-1920)

Tampasian Epoch (1921-1949)

Great Age (1950-1997)

Carolinian Epoch (1950-1964)

Camillian Epoch (1965-1979)

Davidian Epoch (1980-1997)

The Mitchean Eon (1998-present)

The Harsh Era (1998-present)

Age of Giants (1998-present)

Katrinian Epoch (1998-present)

-- § Hurricane E RIC archive 21:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I know who you're thinking of. I just couldn't find a place for ol' Andy. You'll also notice that neither Gilbert or Hugo are on there. They're all part of the Davidian Epoch. This type of activity began with David. Those storms are all similar to David. Yes, there is some transitional time. Transitional periods in geologic time tended to be rough, too. The Revelationary-Mitchean transition is no different.

Also, I'm going to my beach condo today, so I will somewhat less accessable. You will see me, but on rarer occations. I'll be back in early July sometime. Hold the fort down for me. -- § Hurricane E RIC archive 15:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

You seem to be doing a pretty good job of that. It's been dead quiet worldwide ever since Gonu quit raising hell. I'll be back in a couple of weeks. Indian Ocean's been pretty active. -- § Hurricane E RIC archive 20:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, Hurricanehink. There isn't really much point to this message except to randomly thank you for all the effort you put into Wikipedia. You have almost single-handedly made the cyclone section the best around and I certainly hope a hurricane never hits you ;-D. Thanks again. A follow of your work, JHMM13 ^(Disc) 01:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The article Unnamed Tropical Storm (2006) you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Unnamed Tropical Storm (2006) for eventual comments about the article. Well done!

jackturner3 12:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC) reply