User talk:Plasticup

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been denied. Please see the request page for details. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Frivolous edits with AWB

I also wanted to call to your attention to an item in the Rules of use for AWB that caution to:

Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists.

(Emphasis as in the original.) Your edits of numerous aviation articles would certainly seem to fit the exact type of edit AWB users are to avoid. Please watch use of it to avoid edits like this in the future. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC).

I disagree. The edits that I am making are bringing articles into line with the first element of the Manual of Style. These are edits that are often recommended in Peer Reviews; they are important and appreciably affect the articles' readability. In my mind that is the opposite of frivolous. Plasticup ^T/C 04:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It clogs the works. These edits amount to very little and the articles they affect are in no way near FA, GA status. Can't you find something more productive to do with your time, like making content contributions? FWiW, take this in the spirit it is given, but style "warriors" take up too much time and energy, don't become one. Bzuk (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC).

I don't visit wikipedia to have my contributions belittled by you or anyone else. I am adding value, and that is what this whole collaborative encyclopedia is about. You do your bit and I'll do mine. Plasticup ^T/C 04:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to be sure we are on the same page, you may even be technically adding "value" but it is entirely unnecessary as the articles in question are in development and nowhere hear being appraised for GA, FA or other classifications. As well, what you add actually makes editing more difficult. You have changed a large group of articles that immediately triggers red flags. Other editors then have to review the changes like I just did, to find very little benefit from the changes. Working through AWB is also problematic unless there is a real need. Recently administrators have made this a concern with the usual comments that, "user has been asked not to make trivial whitespace alterations, may be valuable changes, but impossible to assess in sea of valueless ones." This seems to be the case with your AWB campaign. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC).

Who decides which articles deserve which levels of craftsmanship? Fluid prose is also a FAC requirement. Shall we abolish grammar until an article approaches FA-status? I know I am taking your argument to the logical extreme, but it just doesn't hold water. Shouldn't our goal be to improve every article as much as possible? And I am sorry if you feel that my edits are a waste of your time. I provided a "minor" tag and clear edit summary to save you the trouble. Plasticup ^T/C 04:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted all of your non-breaking space changes to Montague Bikes. All but one non-breaking space were within a wikitable and therefore not subject to line breaks as might be expected in a long sentence. The first non-breaking space you added was in a string like this: $695.00 USD where the better edit would have been to make it read US$695.00, which is what I did. You might want to slow down and keep instances like this in mind. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You may notice that other editors also have concerns when widescale changes are made with AWB. The introduction of the non-breaking spaces symbol at an early level, makes it excruciatingly difficult to edit around. I accept that when articles proceed to a standard that requires either a review or standard status, that the non-breaking spaces can be introduced and are sometimes but not always preferred by expert reviewers. BTW, the MoS guide says "recommended" not mandated, so there are probably a gazillion articles for you to go through that the original authors chose not to use the style of non-breaking spaces. FWiW, I am not belittling your work, merely having real reservations as to its perceived value to the project. While you may see this as useful work, it is not considered such by many admins and editors. Perhaps more discussion and discourse at project levels should have been your first recourse before embarking on a campaign. Bzuk (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC).

"Can't you find something more productive to do with your time, like making content contributions?" sounds a little disparaging. Perhaps it is the lack of extratextual clues. Maybe you actually meant for me to write two featured articles in 30 days and submit a further FAC and a FLC concurrently. Either way it hardly feels like fostering a spirit of collaboration. But that's okay, I'll just go back to twiddling my thumbs while the FA reviewers get back to me. Goodnight. Plasticup ^T/C 05:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane FLCs

Sure, I'd encourage wikiproject input. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for exceptions

Hallo, Plasticbot got it wrong here by "correcting" deliberately incorrect spellings. Worth looking out for examples like that - I regularly clean up "should of" etc, but I watch out for when it's in a quote or album title etc so needs to be left alone! PamD (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It was supposed to only run in the mainspace where that wouldn't be a problem but a couple of non-mainspaces pages slipped into the list. I have stopped the bot while I figure out how and why—the safe money is on good ol' fashioned user error. Plasticup ^T/C 10:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: SS FAC

Thanks for the follow up. Everything was fine with how you fixed my concerns. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for two things. First for producing a seemingly endless stream of quality content, including two pieces of featured content in one day! And second for being bold enough to FAC 2005 Azores subtropical storm, an article which I never thought would reach GA given it's former length. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, NHC is down for me too. I suspect the website just can't handle the mass amounts of hits, especially because this is the first real storm to threaten Florida since 2005. What's worse, I can't even get to the advisories! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Dean

I am reviewing your article for GA status. Of course I think it is a very good, well-written article and have mentioned only a few things on the comment page. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get to it as soon as I can. After weeks (months?) of silence from WP:GAN I have had 3 articles go "On Hold" today. It is very exciting but I hope that the reviewers can be patient with me as I sort through all of their suggestions. Thanks for starting this review, and I look forward to completing it as soon as humanly possible. Plasticup ^T/C 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a look through your comments and made a few dozen changes. Let me know what you think. Plasticup ^T/C 14:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Give me time to get a grip on today. I will read through it in the next few hours. Reading through your comments, it sounds like you have addressed everything. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review of Tropical Storm Alpha (2005)

Hi! I have completed the GA review of Tropical Storm Alpha (2005), with the full review located at Talk:Tropical Storm Alpha (2005)/GA1. There are just a few minor concerns that I would like you to address before I pass the article. I have put the article on hold for seven days in order to give you time to do this. If you have questions, you can ask them on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki brah

ToneDef Dancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of banned user Wiki brah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) who adds malicious misinformation to FLa related articles. Please do not re-revert the removal of his "contributions". – iridescent 22:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Plasticup ^T/C 22:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem & sorry that was a bit snappy. Be aware that he'll probably resurface under another name in a couple of days. – iridescent 22:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Kurt

Wrt this comment: Please see my stance on the issue and try to understand why I think that your comment is not a good idea. Believe me when I say that I can totally relate and fully agree in spirit with your comment. But it isn't directly related to the discussion at hand and therefore shouldn't be posted to the RfA page. user:Everyme 19:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what those diffs are showing. Are you saying that you have asked my question on a talk page somewhere? I understand your argument that a specific RfA isn't the place for a discussion on the RfA process, but we are meant to discuss the oppositions that users raise. The goal is, ostensibly, to build consensus and that will never happen without discussion. Perhaps I am foolish to ignore the reality that RfA is no more than a vote these days, but I don't see the harm in having some discussion. Plasticup ^T/C 19:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is not discussing Kurt's oppose in the specific context of that RfA, and that's what renders it unrelated meta-commentary which (while, again, highly agreeable imho) does not belong on the RfA page. I've stepped up efforts to distinguish between "legitimate" comments which focus on the discussion at hand from unrelated meta-commentary after my own comments have been moved to RfA talk pages along with such unrelated meta-discussion. The threshold is very simply: Does a comment have direct relation to the discussion at hand or not. Otherwise, someone will inevitably once again move all comments made in response to Kurt's oppose to the talk page. I do not intend to let that happen, seeing as I have made an effort to keep my own comment focused on that specific RfA discussion. user:Everyme 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Weber's "oppose" isn't made in the specific context of this RfA—he posts the exact same text in every self-nom—so how am I supposed to respond in the specific context? You are asking the impossible. Furthermore, isn't Kurt Weber's "vote" (being directed at the general case of self-noms) equally deserving of a move off the RfA page? Plasticup ^T/C 19:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Bro, that's absolutely a point at which I have been for quite some time now, and one which I have vigorously argued for and attempted to defend against admins and other idiots who have no idea what either consensus or an actual discussion is, namely more than a mere exchange of opinions and esp. meta-opinions like Kurt's (comments like "It's my/his/her opinion, leave me/him/her alone" deserves a bullet in the head of such morons, to put it bluntly). The point is, it doesn't matter either way — as far as Kurt himself is concerned. The community has decided to indulge/humour him, and he just continues with it (one might argue that he has to at this point). My sole concern nowadays is that relatively inexperienced users may think that his comments carry any merit and that the mild disruption arising from his opposes may gain traction and turn into a source of major disruption. This could happen in two ways: Either when there are no comments at all that respond to the specific invalidness of an oppose of his in a specific RfA, or when there are comments that can be construed as badgering him in any way. That's why I comment iff there is an obvious gap in his reasoning as pertains to a particular RfA. You see, I just try my best to treat his comments as if it was the only such oppose he had ever made, simply because addressing the overarching issue either with him directly or with the community at large seems impossible. The idea to "excise" unrelated comments so as to preserve the valid ones was born in this AN discussion. user:Everyme 19:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand that resolution of that AN thread. One minute you are ticking along nice and firm, the next everyone agrees to let Kurt disrupt RfAs. That is the consensus, right? That Kurt can continue to disrupt every self-nom will the same canned comment? Plasticup ^T/C 20:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, when I posted there at AN, I didn't even bother to address the issue of Kurt's opposes since I already knew from many earlier discussions that some (read: too many) value "freedom of speech" more than quality of discussion. So instead, I made it clear that the issue was more the routine moving of all responses to the talk page of an RfA as soon as there are "too many" and I tried to highlight the double standard of allowing Kurt comment any way he sees fit but to remove all other comments as "disruptive". The only bright line that makes sense, as I tried to point out at AN and above, is to evaluate comments strictly by their relevance for the RfA. Of course that should ideally apply to Kurt as well, but that point is moot because of all his self-appointed self-styled "free-speech-defenders" (who interestingly never had any problem with silencing and curtailing other users' "right to free speech"). So the only thing that's left is for us to hold up the quality of discussion as best we can and not stoop to Kurt's level by commenting in a way that bears no relevance for a particular discussion. Let's be better than Kurt and inspire others to do the same — not by explicitly stating the obvious (that his comments are ridiculous and disruptive) but by illustrating the same thing by setting a positive example of proper participation in discussion. At least, that's the best I can think of right now. user:Everyme 20:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about TS Fay gif

Hi, I'm wondering what you used to create the gif from the satellite animation for Fay. Could you tell me what you used to create it? I would possibly use it for similar purposes on Wikipedia. Thanks. Hello32020 (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure there are better ways—my technique was low-tech in the extreme. I took screenshots of the Infrared loop off this site and cropped out the piece I wanted. Then I used Adobe Fireworks to splice them together into an animated .gif. Plasticup ^T/C 22:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Timeline of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season

Thanks, and thanks for the note. I hadn't even noticed it was promoted. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick unrelated question. Are you planning on working on the Hurricane Felix article? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean because it was so similar to Hurricane Dean? I thought about it, but I want to get back working on the 2005 hurricane season. Plasticup ^T/C 02:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat. I just wanted to know before I started working at it myself. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject

Hello, I was wondering how I might be able to join the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject. If you have any information please contact me on my user page. I am very interested in tropical cyclones and would love to lend a helping hand. Thanks! (Hurricaneguy (talk) 21:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC))

Burger King legal issues

Hi,

I was just wondering, did I resolve all of the issues you raised in the FAC? could you please respond at the peer review I set up.

Thank you for your time,

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you did, as much as possible. I don't have the time to give the article a full peer review, but best of luck with the next FAC. For long articles like that it is always a long process, but I am confident that you will get there eventually. Plasticup ^T/C 01:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

ITN

On 29 August, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) Hurricane Gustav (2008), which you created or substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

Spencer^T♦C 19:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer Removal

May I ask why the current disaster template was removed from the TS Ike article? --Resplendent (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. It is not necessary. Every page already comes with a disclaimer. I am not going to bother fighting the raging hordes in the Hurricane Gustav article, but in little Tropical Storm Ike (2008) there is absolutely no need. The storm isn't even near land. Plasticup ^T/C 21:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So why is that template even in existence? The usage example on the template itself specifically gives Tropical Cyclones as an example. The Hurricane Hanna (2008) article is also currently using this template. --Resplendent (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

These disclaimer templates are constantly deleted and re-created. Think back to our basic principle for a second—we are writing an encyclopedia. It isn't our job to offer advice; it is our job to document the event. Does that template improve the encyclopedia? I say that it does not. Plasticup ^T/C 21:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how your opinion outweighs mine and that of the template creator. While the template as it is could use some work, I believe it has value seeing as Wikipedia itself is not just an encyclopedia, but has become a source of information on general current world events, and those not as familiar with how it works may assume all information is current and may end up risking their lives based on such false or outdated information. --Resplendent (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

At no time did I mean to imply that my opinion was more important than yours-I'm sorry if it came across that way. On the contrary, this encyclopedia is built on the principle that our opinions are equally important. Perhaps we ought to discuss this on the article's talk page where others can voice their opinions? Plasticup ^T/C 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I was going to suggest that myself. --Resplendent (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I corrected the disambiguation here for you. Thanks for your efforts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC) (who is not watching this page)

Thanks. Plasticup ^T/C 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

sad face....

you made me sad

why u have to rv my edits?? i worked sooooooo hard on this now i have to start over again in 3 weeks. i should be rewarded with a barnstar or other rewards. Im not going to make and edit again.Jer10 95 Talk 01:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC) :(

You were just a little premature, that's all. When the hurricane dissipates you can add back the infobox, and when an official damage assessment comes out you can add that too. Plasticup ^T/C 01:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

im a little happy now

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		for making me happy from the last message, i award you this barnstar Jer10 95 Talk 01:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Gustav

I'm sorry, Plasticup, I guess I was misinforemed. I went to , should I trust this site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syntheticalconnections (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

wunderground is generally pretty good. Maybe you misinterpreted what they said? I don't know for sure, but don't worry about it either way. There are plenty of editors keeping that article up to scratch, and the dissipation is just a temporary matter anyway. In the future the authoritative website is http://www.nhc.noaa.gov and/or http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov Plasticup ^T/C 01:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the way they do the tracking, unless they changed it. On wunderground they didn't have Gustav up, and they don't seem to put up storms as a tropical depression after it turns into a tropical storm. It'll be as TD7 (for example) and then its a Tropical Storm and they put one hurricane tracking shape for fight before it changed and then the TS dot. Even if it was TD for a while. I don't understand it. Syntheticalconnections (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Hurricane Gustav

I was too busy with getting updates on current storms (and the others) to put any attention in that. It's not easy when there are four (now three) storms out there... CrazyC83 (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I have published the (incomplete) meteorological history in the last few minutes. Thanks for all your help updating the current storms—it is a monstrous task right now. Plasticup ^T/C 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #20

Number 20, September 6, 2008

The Hurricane Herald

This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The Hurricane Herald aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global tropical cyclone activity. If you wish to change how you receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. This newsletter covers all of August 2008.

Please visit this page and bookmark any suggestions of interest to you. This will help improve monitoring of the WikiProject's articles.

Storm of the month

Hurricane Gustav at landfall in western Cuba at peak strength

Hurricane Gustav was a deadly and damaging hurricane which formed late in the month in the Caribbean Sea. It first struck Haiti on August 26 as a minimal hurricane, where it killed 76 people and damaged or destroyed over 10,000 houses. Gustav turned to the southwest, moving over Jamaica where it killed 11 people. The hurricane rapidly intensified to reach peak winds of 150 mph (240 km/h) before making landfall on western Cuba; in the country, Gustav damaged or destroyed over 100,000 houses, though no deaths were reported due to well-executed evacuations. In the Gulf of Mexico, Gustav weakened due to its previous land interaction, and on September 1 it made landfall in south-central Louisiana as a Category 2 hurricane, where it caused heavy damage. Across its path, the hurricane caused 101 deaths, with an initial damage total of $20 billion.

Other tropical cyclone activity

• Atlantic Ocean– In addition to Gustav, three other tropical cyclones formed. Early in the month, Tropical Storm Edouard caused light damage when it moved ashore along Texas. In the middle of the month, Tropical Storm Fay formed over Hispaniola and later crossed over Cuba into the Gulf of Mexico; throughout the Caribbean it caused 25 deaths. Fay struck southwestern Florida, moved across the state, turned to the west, and moved across the Florida panhandle, making a record four landfalls on the state. The storm dropped 27.65 inches (702.1 mm) of rain in Melbourne, making Fay the fourth wettest Florida tropical cyclone. In the end of the month, Hurricane Hanna formed northeast of the Lesser Antilles; its impact will be covered in the next month's summary.
• Eastern Pacific Ocean – Four named storms developed in the basin during the month, including Tropical Storm Kika, which was the first Central Pacific tropical cyclone since Ioke in 2006. Hurricane Hernan was the strongest hurricane of the month in the basin, reaching Category 3 status while remaining away from land. Tropical Storm Iselle lasted for a few days, but did not affect land. Tropical Storm Julio made landfall on Baja California Sur, producing heavy rainfall and causing two deaths.
• Northwestern Pacific Ocean – The month began with Tropical Storm Kammuri forming and hitting southern China; the storm killed 140 people, mostly in neighboring Vietnam, and damage totaled $120 million (USD). Tropical Storms Phanfone and Vongfone lasted for a few days out at sea, before Typhoon Nuri formed and struck northern Luzon, causing 12 deaths.
• 2008 North Indian Ocean cyclone season – A depression formed and struck Odisha.

Member of the month

Cyclone barnstar

The August member of the month is Cyclonebiskit, who has been on Wikipedia since April. The user helped maintain the current season articles as well as storm articles. Cyclonebiskit has written one GA, and wrote much of one of the recent tropical cyclone articles.

New members

JamieS93 RockManQ

Hurricaneguy Diligent Terrier

New and improved articles

• There were eight new pieces of Featured content : Hurricane Vince (2005), Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne, 2005 Azores subtropical storm, Timeline of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, Tropical Storm Barry (2001), Timeline of the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, and Hurricane Kyle (2002)
• New Good articles include: Effects of Hurricane Charley in South Carolina, Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting
• New storm articles include: Tropical Storm Andrew (1986), Tropical Depression Nine (2000), Tropical Storm Norman (2006)
• New non-storm articles include: List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes, Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison, 1967 Pacific hurricane season, List of Maryland hurricanes (1950–1979), and Effects of Hurricane Noel in the United States

Main Page content

• Hurricane Gloria appeared as Today's Featured Article on August 13
• Tropical Storm Kammuri (2008) and Hurricane Gustav appeared on In the news during August.
• Entries from articles: Tropical Storm Kiko (2007), List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes, Tropical Storm Andrew (1986), and Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison appeared on the Main Page in the Did you know column during August.

Storm article statistics

Grade	May	Jun	Jul	Aug
FA	41	41	42	46
A	17	18	18	18
GA	129	135	139	147
B	101	96	15	15
C	0	3	98	99
Start	209	208	202	197
Stub	9	9	10	15
Total	506	510	524	537
ω	2.88	2.87	2.94	2.92
percentage ≥Less than C	43.1	42.5	40.5	39.5
percentage ≥GA or better	37.0	38.0	38.0	39.3

Version 0.7
This month, several of the WikiProject's articles were selected for the Version 1.0 Editorial Team's Version 0.7 static release. The article selection occurs using an automated process using WikiProjects' quality and importance assessments. For WPTC, this means that 29 articles will be part of this release, an increase from 13 in the previous release. It should be noted that these numbers are based on preliminary data that can change based on updates to the database and corrections to the selection algorithm and WP:1.0's cut-off score.

The list of articles chosen for the release can be seen here. Of the selection, almost half of the articles are already featured, and eleven are good articles. There one B-Class article (1970 Bhola cyclone, two C-Class articles (Hurricane Andrew, Cyclone Nargis), and two Start-Class articles (Pacific typhoon, Hurricane Rita). As these articles will be published in a CD, it is imperative that the project improve them quickly.

The full list of all the WikiProject's articles is also available here. According to that list, WPTC's highest-scoring article—Tropical cyclone—has a score of 1969, which is very good as Canada, the selection's highest-scoring article, has a score of 2,409. That said, Extreme wind warning is the least important article we have, with a score of 227, so we may have to improve it a little bit so it isn't that low...

♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Categorization and Correction of Vessel Inventories and Histories

PD: Categorization and Correction of MARAD/NDRF/NISP/etc

There is a significant problem with the following topics, perhaps you can concentrate on them and get a clear set of categories set up from official sources:

Marad's Ghost fleet includes NDRF but also NISP and many others NDRF should be recognized as the independent naval operation that it is RRF, sibling of NDRF, is a fully functional navy independent as well NIF (inactive fleet) is blatantly missing NISP, similar to NIF as NDRF/RRF are.

Most of these are databased sources, you've seen PMARS (DOT) which handles the NDRF and RRF, RRF has its own operating authority with better data.

NIF and NISP are separate operations though within the US Navy, this needs to be clarified.

Importing a full list of the vessels, types, etc, is quite a simple task, though there are at least 8 contradicting sources for this from authorities.

Marad handles both the NIF and non-nuclear (not cold and hot, only removed) storage except where NIF is operating (usually with RRF) at an active military base

The pattern is typically quite obvious, active civilian or army/navy service, NIF/NISP and RRF, then to NDRF and NISP/NIF inactive...

However, each of these timelines, some MARAD have been there for half a century, others switch between the fleets and service (gulf war, etc), are interrelated.

A category or template box need to be set up to categorize and sort these, obvious data is the actual vessel (always use original name, see SS Norway example) and redirect the newer names and intermediate IDs to the original with a sub section.

Given the suisun bay vs NDRF treehugger court case in two weeks, the clemenceau UN case this coming week, and the problems with the scrappers recently, these should really be cleaned up asap.

I have a database of the vessels in full, its being reactivated and the current data from all sources imported, however its unknown if all sources (obviously not) are public domain from journals or histories, so exporting more than the facts from .mil / .gov will be troubling to filter.

Obviously auto-generation of the historical data is possible, let me know asap how to best do this.

basicly all the vessels need to have the same template for their histories, why this has never been standardized is beyond my comprehension.

bluenorway@gmail.com and via notes.

(though slightly different in their intl classification, Aircraft Boneyard needs to be handled in the similar manner, even if the aircraft/tailnumbers are simply a table in a list page)

Scraps, feel free to clean Hurricane Gustav

New topic for each incident/major category?

agreed, however the canal needs to emphasize both the major problems (like katrina) and the economic and continuity of operation equally...

There is very little information about the canal's operation in general, this should be added

is there a standard form template for mass incidents like this which can be coppied for a gustav section ?

i expect the court cases and the rest of the issues to be very public this coming week and historically relevant as they will be reorganizing environmental and uscg/fema enforcement next week...?

industrial canal/hurricane could be broken out especially with the major investigations and cleanup, otherwise should be crosslinked as major article to these —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenorway (talk • contribs) 19:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the content from Industrial Canal because it is only tangentially relevant. The article is meant to be about the canal as a whole—to focus 50% of its content on one minor incident there is absurd. Besides, you already pasted the exact same text into the article on Hurricane Gustav, where is it much better suited. Plasticup ^T/C 19:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

MOVE TO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Gustav#Vessels_in_the_Industrial_Canal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenorway (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You can NOT delete international vessels

those are boats. Their records are guaranteed by Wikipedia policy.

Advise you write something instead of destroying it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenorway (talk • contribs) 20:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because it exists does not mean that it is notable. You could start out by adding some content, followed by reliable sources. Right now it is just a blank page with some headings. Plasticup ^T/C 20:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be categories for the various vessel groups, I can not find them; the MARAD reserve fleet is a naval branch and should be a category, also you dont seem to realize that single incident is getting a massive inquiry and presidential order by next week. Its got to go somewhere. Source and historical data are listed for those two, obviously a short history from you will come quicker than the full reports from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenorway (talk • contribs) 21:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources? I can't help your write this thing if I don't have any sources. Also I tidied up the two vessel articles. Plasticup ^T/C 21:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

there are approx 20 news explicitly referencing the topic, plus 14+ federal press releases or authorities as of ... 8 hours ago. news "industrial canal" "southern scrap" also search nola.com, there is a stockpile of links in the comments of http://nola.com/mystorm/ from /01/ through current, likely the best collection while press media is under gag order unfortionately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenorway (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be some sort of message board, which does not meet Wikipedia's standard of a reliable source. Can you elaborate about this gag order? What court placed a gag order, and for what reason? Plasticup ^T/C 21:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gustav Incidents

You know wikipedia is horribly inefficient, and the exponential time required waiting on it to update correctly inhibits populating data, no less writing appropriately. Go through the hurricane page and offload the larger topics to the Incidents page before the entire Hurricane Gustav gets erased as "insignificant" -- also you should include references, hint, boat names when you simplify things excessively. ?;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluenorway (talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

When the article Hurricane Gustav gets too large we will likely split off Effects of Hurricane Gustav in Louisiana. Maybe we will use Effects of Hurricane Gustav in the Caribbean. Your "split" does not improve the article. Firstly, the current article is not big enough to warrant being split up. Secondly, you are not separating content into intuitive groups. An article about "incidents" doesn't add any organization to the topic at large. Plasticup ^T/C 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Bluenorway (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Peace man. don't take the comments at your RFa personally. Some people don't have a sense of humour. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 19:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am really shocked at the responses. The people I've gotten to know here all enjoy a little humor but the RfA crowd is obviously a very different bunch. Plasticup ^T/C 19:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the RfA requires a thicker skin than the position of the administrator itself. Anyways, just wanted to wish you good luck.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, but the bandwagon has already been set in motion. I'll just get back to my articles. Plasticup ^T/C 20:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Your RFA is still new, so anything can happen. God, I hope it passes. Anyway, good job with your article building, and keep it up. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)