User talk:Gavirulax

Sourcing

Hey there, when adding ref tags to article, the manual of style convention is to not have a space between the punctuation and the ref (because otherwise, on long sentences, the reference would break to the next line). Just a heads up. Cheers, – Chacor 11:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and in regards to reverting your edit about Cyclone Monica in Larry's article, I didn't even realise I did that (I must have edited my last version). Apologies.Gavirulax 11:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George

An article for George (or for that matter any storm) would require the storm history, preparations taken ahead of the storm, the storm's impact, and, if any, aftermath. At this point it doesn't look like there's a whole lot of information on preps and impact (although I may be wrong, maybe there's more info available in Oz), so an article might turn out stubby and short and become a merge candidate.

If you were to create an article, I would suggest that you not use the text already in the seasonal article as is. Perhaps, if you wanted to use just a bit of it for the storm history, yes, but if you used everything that's there right now, and left it like that as our "article" on George, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be liked (and again, as above, would probably become a merge candidate), partially because there's not enough information in the season section to justify an article, and so it would definitely have to be added to (although, as is, any info could be added to the season section).

If you're still keen on writing an article for George, I'd suggest you wrote it within your userspace (maybe at User:Gavirulax/Cyclone George, or similar), and when you think it's done, see if it's good enough to stand on its own. If it's still essentially what's already in the season's section, it probably doesn't need an article.

Hope that helps. – Chacor 12:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just move the page into your userspace. Bear in mind to use formal writing language (i.e., no contractions), and reference (if possible) every last thing. – Chacor 12:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again. Gavirulax 12:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, actually, looking at it, there may be enough information for an article. Although I'd still urge you to re-write the aftermath (and please split it up into preparations and impact where possible), most likely there's enough information to justify it having an article at the end of the day. – Chacor 12:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all your help. It's late in Aus, so I'm off to sleep. I'll finish as much as possible tomorrow and should have enough information to post it as an article. :)Gavirulax 13:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perth LOW

Mate, heads up that I'm gonna revert your addition of that current Perth LOW. I think the general agreement from past seasons is that only LOWS that cause tropical cyclone advices be added to the article. It can be added when it develops into a cyclone, or when an advice is issued. Cheers. – Chacor 05:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, wasn't too sure if they needed advices or not. I imagine by how fast it's developing it'll probably be one soon anyway. Thanks.Gavirulax 05:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Just saying hello. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:47, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Lock this page

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gavirulax (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:Leventorous was banned for no reason - i.e. - Lock the page.

Decline reason:

Yet another sockpuppet. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.