accuweather.com

I do not appreciate personal attacks or trolls. If you make personal attacks or attempt to troll on this page, they will not be tolerated.

Dude...

Chacor, sorry, but you gotta calm down a bit. This is a community after all, and several people are getting a bit annoyed. While it's alright being bold sometimes, no one person has more authority over anyone else. It almost seems like you're taking things a bit too seriously, with all the rule mentions. True, we have several policies, but your constant reminders of civility are getting a lot of people annoyed. Take a chill pill ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Can this do

Can this source do for the article on Typhoon Xangsane? [1] - Deogene 07:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Accuweather.com

Is the website www.accuweather.com a spamsite ? This is used by FOX News on their news service to report on the weather. Does it rate a article here, just as the Weather Channel does ? Martial Law 22:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

AccuWeather, article already exists. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the assisstance. Martial Law 00:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Xangsane

I've finished the preparations section. Feel free to look it over in case I missed something. I'm gonna head to bed now, so I'll work on impact later today if I have the time. --Coredesat (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Typhoon Xangsane

FYI you forgot to undelete the prior versions of the article and corresponding talk page after the move. – Chacor 14:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The main article had a minor history, one that's not worth keeping (it was simply a redirect). The talk page could possibly be called minor (it's debatable) but I've restored it anyway. —Mets501 (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't simply a redirect (one single edit); rather there was a prior version that was merged into the main article for the season. Not sure, but I'll defer to you, but personally I would restore it. – Chacor 14:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're saying. It was only a one line thing, but I've restored it. History merging is not really preferred as it can create problems, is impossible to undo without a developer, and produces incorrect diffs, however. —Mets501 (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Strange edit moving text"

Sorry about that. I don't know what happened. (I'm on a slow PC right now.) :-O 1ne 16:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Chacor,

Why is my entry being deleted by you from the Get The Picture page?

Bill

Merge notice

Your articles on Typhoon Joan (1970) and Typhoon Dot (1985) are currently a Start-Class hurricane article, and is being proposed for a merge. If you wish to to keep the article, you should state your thoughts on the article's talk page, or consider expanding the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

--Peta 10:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Need help

As per Tropical Disturbance Advisory Number A11 issued from RSMC NADI issued on Dec 28/0831 UTC 2002.

The Tropical Cyclone ZOE 04F Minimum Central Pressure was [890hPa] located near 12.5S 169.5E at 280600 UTC. with Maximum 10-minute average winds near the centre estimated at 130 Knots.

Should I go ahead and edit article on Cyclone_Zoe?

I have downloaded a file Tropical Disturbance Advisory Number A11 issued from RSMC NADI from ftp site.--Ugaap 16:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Alberto image

Umm, the image you removed from 2000AHS: [[Image:Alberto 2000]] is from NASA and was taken by a NOAA satellite, that's as public domain as it gets. There is nothing resembling a copyvio here. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone Mala

I had checked that archive but RSMC advisories for Tropical Cyclone Mala are incomplele and nowhere could I find the maximum wind speeds as well as minimum pressure for this Cyclone. Your posting of the minimum pressure for Mala 954 [hPa] is from RSMC as per your edit. Isn't there any other source we could get data for RSMC New Delhi?--Ugaap 16:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Please be more careful

Please be more careful when reverting. – Chacor 17:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, the second I opened history to verify... my laptop auto-hibernated because the battery was at 2%. Sorry...--Anaraug 17:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane categories

Sorry. Still thinking about this. A "consensous" built on the foundation of a lack of response, is really no consensous at all. And a "consensous" to violate standards and (what appears to me to be) common sense (Tropical Storms placed in Hurricane categories) just strikes me as wrong. So I'm still thinking about all this. - TexasAndroid 11:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to, I will not edit war over it. You may consider the issue closed, but I do not. But I have no idea how to properly proceed from here. I'm sorry, but your "consensous" just is not one. But in the face of screaming apathy to the issue, I don't know where to go next for a real consensous. And I still have the problem with the fact that, IMHO, standards for categories say that it should not be done this way in the first place. Yeah, it says there are exceptions, but nothing I have seen qualifies this situation for the exceptions. And, as I have argued a couple of times, the idea of haveing storms that failed to reach Hurricane status in "Hurricane" categories just flat out strikes me as violating common sense. Shrug. But I'm not sure how to proceed from here. Anyway, I have to leave for work. Do as you wish at this point. - TexasAndroid 11:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No consensous, no. But standards that say they should not be there, yes. - TexasAndroid 12:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

extratropical redir

My apologies for that - I wasn't thinking. --Crimsone 11:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yomangani's RFA

How embarassing. Thanks for pointing it out and letting me take care of it. --Storkk 16:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)