User talk:Runningonbrains/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions and postings on my talk page. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Any edits will be reverted. To contact me, post on my talk page. Namaste.

The January 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) 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Noting that you attached a 'citation required' ,(reasonably so), to my edit of Dust Devil of 08.01 22 January under subheading Related Phenomena, I suspect we can possibly be of mutual assistance in tidying-up the subject of fire swirls. You are a Physics Major student while I am a retired engineer working in collaboration with a retired physicist on a private research project in which I build the experimental apparatus, conduct/observe/measure/record the results from which my colleague does the number-crunching to lead to further experiment. A part of the early work involved creation of wood fires within an outdoor structure having means to cause the horizontal inflow to become a vortical vertical flow. This is why I posted, under Disussion, that my Article edit was based on personal observation. There is little known to me or my colleague in the way of scientific publications on the subject. Two references by way of Google are:
"Wilfire Modeling,IR Observations and Analysis", Radke et al, at http://jfsp.nifc.gov/conferenceproc/GIRS-12-AORadkeetal.pdf , or
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fire/glossary.html . My email is gwickau@bigpond.com.au ( my log-in dropped out while writing this) Geoffrey Wickham 60.230.80.91 01:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. The first link should read www.jfsp.nifc.gov/conferenceproc/GISRS-12-AORadkeetal.pdf Geoffrey Wickham 02:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply & for adding the link. Keep up the study (schoolwork) as that's more important. Please keep me in mind for further discussion should you wish so. The word I used "collaboration" means [to me] that my retired physicist colleague and I are working together towards a better understanding of atmospheric vortices, with a possible practical application in mind, without outside funding or any financial obligations to each other. Geoffrey Wickham 06:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't really know what the deal is with importance ratings. I've never changed one before. But geostrophy is THE most fundamental thing, the first thing you should learn, about large-scale movement of air in the atmosphere and water in the ocean. That's why they print isobars on weather maps--the wind blows along the isobars because of the geostrophic balance. So if geostrophy is of mid importance in meteorology, what is high importance? I cannot think of a single meteorological concept that is as important. I won't revert, but I'd be interested to hear why you think mid is more appropriate than high. Rracecarr 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm shocked. I just looked at Category:High-importance meteorology articles. There are 79 High importance articles, including: 1936 North American heat wave, India Meteorological Department, and Tupelo-Gainesville tornado outbreak????? And Geostrophy doesn't make the cut? That's not rediculous. That's funny. Having looked things over, I now think Geostrophy should be rated as Top importance, and I think many of the High importance articles should be down-graded. Rracecarr 17:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. Guess I posted on your user page instead of talk. Sorry. Rracecarr 07:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Your rating of this article as Start class has been questioned at its featured list discussion. I must admit that I was surprised too, since (admittedly as a meteorological layman) it looks much higher quality than that to me. Would you mind revisiting that rating and, if you still consider it to be valid, posting your concerns about the article on its talk page or the featured list discussion. --OpenToppedBus – Talk to the driver 15:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed your sig is starting to get bloated in markup, which is an inconvenience when replying to you. I suggest you try to trim it down in accordance with WP:SIG. Currently it appears as:

<b><font size="2" face="Helvetica" color="black">[[User:Runningonbrains|RunningOnBrains]]</font></b> <font size="1" face="Helvetica" color="orange">[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology|—]]</font> <font size="1" face="Helvetica" color="green">[[Special:Contributions/Runningonbrains|Mine]]</font> <font size="1" face="Helvetica" color="blue">[[User talk: Runningonbrains|Yours]]</font> <font size="1" face="Helvetica" color="purple">[[Special:Randompage|Someone else's]]</font>

The following code is an improvement, whilst being functionally identical:

'''[[User:Runningonbrains|<span style="color:black;">RunningOnBrains</span>]]''' <small>[[WP:METEO|<span style="color:orange;">—</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Runningonbrains|<span style="color:green;">Mine</span>]] [[User talk:Runningonbrains|<span style="color:blue;">Yours</span>]] [[Special:Random|<span style="color:purple;">Someone else's</span>]]</small>

The current version is RunningOnBrains — Mine Yours Someone else's and the modified code above gives RunningOnBrains — Mine Yours Someone else's

As for further reductions, getting rid of the Special:Random link and reducing colouration would help. Hope that helps.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, much better. I'm not against free speech after all so what you have is fine now :)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The February 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) 18:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else cought it. - Patricknoddy 15:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the bit about wind speeds? These speeds are part of the Fujita scale of measuring tornadic strength, and do not necessarily require weather office data. Thanks. Denni^talk 02:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your speedy response. What you say makes emminent sense, and I am happy to let your edit stand. While I have your attention, I would like to ask a favor. I trust your capacity as an editor and would like you to look at Weather lore as a GA candidate. It was, back when Wikipedia was less critical, a FA, but then it got delisted. I have done my best to bring it up to speed, and even though I know it would never pass as a contemporary Featured Article, I still believe it is a Good Article, especially as measured against several other articles I've seen moved into GA status. I have done my best to make sure it is both informative and entertaining, and have provided sources to the best standard possible. I hope you think so too. Denni^talk 04:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please see my comments in reply to your comments in the FAC. If you say, I can add some citation needed tags where I feel inline citations are needed. You can just follow that and provide citations. Do you agree? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've tried the "assessment display" script in IE and I don't encounter any problems. The popups background remains yellowish. I wonder if one of the other items in your monobook.js is causing the problem. Sorry I can't help with that one. –Outriggr § 00:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been fooling around with my monobook.js and metadata.js pages, trying to get both popups and the new assessment script to work together, and now, all of the sudden, it won't let me load Wikipedia in Internet Explorer. After a second or two (after I click a link or type it in the address bar), an error message pops up saying "Internet Explorer cannot open Internet site http://en.wikipedia.org/Main_page" or whatever page I try to go to. I am currently editing from Mozilla, and it works fine. Please help. -RunningOnBrains 04:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can blank your monobook.js so you can load Wikipedia in IE again, if you want, but I do not know enough about scripting to help otherwise. —Centrx→talk • 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I already tried that. Could you point me in the direction where I could get help? -RunningOnBrains 04:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts, which has and links to a lot of information, and there are several users listed there who could help. There's also IRC (WP:IRC), if someone knowledgeable happens to be online. —Centrx→talk • 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about entering

// [[User:Outriggr/metadata.js]]
 importScript('User:Outriggr/metadata.js'); 

instead of what you have for my script now? You are currently missing a closing script tag for metadata.js the way it's set up in monobook.js. –Outriggr § 08:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry! I didn't know there was a discussion on it. Thank you VERY MUCH for bringing it to my attention!

I only added the Codell Tornado (also known as the Tornado of the Elevens) becuase i thought it was very odd for a tornado to strike at November 11, 1911, at 11:11 PM (11/11/11 at 11:11 PM or 23:11). It's the date that intrigues me, not so much the time.

I do agree that it was a bit ambiguous on when the tornado started and ended, and how long it lasted, and i will research that. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Tornado of the Elevens strucks Osswego, Michigan. The town of Codell is known for being hit by a tornado 3 years consecutively, each time on May 20th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.248.140 (talk • contribs)

Hello....! Not much activities going on in the article or the FAC. Please try to address the comments that are already in the FAC. A stagnant FAC is definitely not going to pass :( The article is lovely. And I hope if you address the present concerns (citations, and printed source) — which I think you can do easily — the FAC would receive more attention. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've removed the weather-stub template from Great Sheffield Flood. If you read the references, you will see that it was caused by the limitations of the civil engineering of the time, not by weather – this was a man-made disaster. Viv Hamilton 21:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded in the main tornado page...haven't had much time for Wikipedia lately between travel and work. I did see that one editor implied you had ownership of the page. I have been absent for months after my last round of edits in trying to get the tornado page to B class. Since you have "ownership" of the page, any further large edits will be run past you in the future...but I don't see any major issues that would require another large edit at this time. The first edits in October helped with the last half of the article, and this round helped with the first half. Reverting back to the old version and making incremental edits over a long time frame still gets us back to the place we are at now, so I don't see the point now that the change has been made. Both the old and new versions had problems with the placement of multiple vortex tornado and tornado outbreaks...I like the compromise proposed. I think my edit made the placement error more obvious. What is this about the semicolon function? What does it do? Thegreatdr 20:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Marquette, Kansas tornado in this list from 1905 has a citation needed on it. Here is a link I found that tells about the tornado, but it doesn't really describe its intensity. However it does list Grazulis, T. P.: Significant Tornadoes, 1680–1991 as it's reference. Do you still have access to this to see what it says about it? http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/wxevents/19050510/synopsis.php Gopher backer 18:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, sorry about that. I just assumed that since the class appeared okay in the banner it was fine. I'll go back and try and clean those up tonight. Gopher backer 17:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Runningonbrains, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (File:VolStateTornadoDamage.PNG) was found at the following location: User:Runningonbrains/sandbox/April 6-8, 2006 Tornado Outbreak. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, when we add an article to the Severe Weather events project, do we also remove it from the "normal" meteorology project that may already be listed, or do we leave both in there? Then, once we add the project template, is there a guide for rating the events? I probably won't even assign any as Top, but I'm curious as how you want to rate High, Medium & Low. Gopher backer 02:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that you consider the Tornado Girl to be spam. I thought it would be a nice "general reading" addition since it captures tornado in an art form. Kmzundel 15:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So glad you're not angry – more likely exhausted. I went through TFA (Ellis Paul) on Tuesday. I had NO idea that TFA is a hot target for vandals. I'm hoping to help change the current policy which does not allow TFA protection. You may be interested in reading the current discussion here:Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection. Anyway, when I saw that TFA today was Tornado, I immediately thought of the poem.  :-) Kmzundel 16:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't all the vandalism fun? Thanks for all your work on bringing tornado to FA status, as well as on so many other articles. Evolauxia 17:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it on tomorrow because it's 12:45 am for here already and I want to catch some hockey playoff action on tomorrow morning at 8. OhanaUnited 16:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could use help and advice on a couple of problems. When you get a chance, would you please take a look and figure out a way that I (or you) could fix the severe weather article? My second problem is should I (or you) create a seperate article for severe thunderstorms, or is that covered by the supercell and thunderstorm articles? Ks0stm 18:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:SALT...I'm a very new admin as well, and may be using the lesser-preferred manner lol. Jmlk17 05:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm from Maine, and I was just wondering which flood your picture is of, and where it was taken. If you want to see real severe weather, come up for a couple weeks in January. Christopher Reuter 04:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Buckfield. It's a small town outside of Lewiston/Auburn, about 3 hours or so from the Mount Desert Island area. I am in the extreme southern part of the foothills area, so I do not really receive any flooding. Because it is so unusual for flooding to occur here, everyone makes a pretty big deal out of it when it does happen. Thanks for your response. Christopher Reuter 14:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple questions on your comments and other issues. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is for the Severe Weather article under the section Outbreaks. I really dont know how I could phrase it or put in the formulas. The full publication (and correct formulas) can be found at http://www.spc.noaa.gov/publications/edwards/defpaper.pdf

Furthermore, another problem is the lack of consideration of event magnitude. In effort to address those concerns we have formulated a severe weather outbreak index ( SO) analogous to the O index for tornado events. The SO utilizes “nearest to top 50" natural breaks using variable criteria. Six variables are used: total hail reports, total wind reports (damage and speed), total severe, significant (>5 cm) diameter hail, significant (>32 m s-1) wind speed events, and total significant severe reports. As with O, a mean and standard deviation were computed for each “top 50" set. The formulation is: SOg = [(D-Mg)/Sg] and n SO = ��SOg I=1 where n=6 members as described above. Significant severe reports are included because they have been shown (i.e., W02) to be more robust over the time span of the data set. Still, note the absence (preliminarily) of a weighting factor combined with the predominance of events from the mid 1990s through 2002 in the rankings of Table 3. As a result, SO weighting factor(s), analogous to that in the O index, will be tested. Such weights should heavily favor the more temporally stable significant-event criteria, in order to address the report inflation problem (i.e., W02) and thereby impart more representative temporal balance to the outbreak listings.

Ks0stm 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Runningonbrains. I see that you pretty much created and updated this template, and I formatted it a little differently. Are there any problems? sorry if I screw something up... :) *Cremepuff222* 18:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! Would you like me to help you change the other templates? I was about to update the 10 deadliest US tornadoes, but I wanted to get the "OK" from you before doing so. *Cremepuff222* 18:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm done modifying the templates. Which articles need to have the templates moved still? *Cremepuff222* 19:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I really wanted to help you, but I'll let you do it. It was nice meeting you! *Cremepuff222* 19:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll work on the {{25 deadliest US tornadoes}} now... *Cremepuff222* 19:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the assessment that gives this article an A-class. Can you provide me a link to that? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 11:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be reviewed by A-class department and passes its criteria before it can become A-class article. The process is very similar to GA, except the criterias are tougher. If there's no such review, then it should be reversed back to GA status. As for the tool, it requires some time (around 2-3 days) before being updated if you added it today. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all WikiProjects have A-class review departments. Take a look atWikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/2007/Promoted for ideas. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change it back to GA status. It requires at least more than 1 person to go through the review and approve it as A class. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, replying half a month later, but I've been away for a little bit... what happened with {{Table-Class}} was that someone created a Table namespace, which was then subsequently removed. It is an artifact of that incident. Titoxd^{(?!? – cool stuff)} 23:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article New Richmond Tornado you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:New Richmond Tornado for things needed to be addressed. Mainly it's just rewording some of the prose to give it a slightly more professional, encyclopedic tone. It's really good, but I personally want to see just a little bit more before it gets GA. Thanks, and let me know if you have questions about this. I'll be around for a few days if you need it. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 23:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A FA review is definitely in order, however, I'm not quite done editing and would wait until then. I should be done with any significant changes by the end of this weekend. I just moved the detection section to Convective storm detection and will consolidate the material in the tornado article to the most crucial. I'm also going to add to the prediction section, add a blurb about the difference between mesocyclonic and nonmesocyclonic tornadoes as the intro in the types section, and make a handful of other tweaks. Evolauxia 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am fairly new to Wikipedia and a weather addict and want to help improve and create great Severe Weather Articles and I saw your in the Tropical Cyclones Project also and I was interested in that also. So my question is how I join? Thanks

and BTW... RvB #39 Is my favorite! -Wxweenie91 (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been mentionned in the Wikiproject Severe Weather talk page but here is a link to the discussion.--JForget 01:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some information in old newspapers about a tornado that hit Salina, Kansas and Clay Center, Kansas on September 25, 1973, but after checking the NCDC Storm Events Database ¹ I don't know if it would qualify as a tornado outbreak or just a single tornado.

1. All of the tornado listings with $25 million in damage are the same tornado, and it is possible that other listings are duplicates as well.

--Ks0stm 17:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed that a template you created, Template:Tornado/temp, is unused and appears to be abandoned. I've marked it as deprecated, meaning it'll be deleted in two weeks' time if nobody objects. If there's a reason to keep it please leave a note at Wikipedia talk:Deprecated and orphaned templates and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. Thanks. Bryan Derksen 05:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Template:Meteorology/temp. Bryan Derksen 05:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hurricanehink/Active

There is a discussion started by User:Juliancolton at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology about a proposed/possible new WikiProject called WikiProject Winter storms. Feel free to voice your opinion on the proposal.--JForget 01:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]