User talk:Mikenorton/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Colloidal silver

Kindly reply on the talk page of the article if you have further objections. Please be precise why you oppose the section to be included and refer to the wiki policies along with citations, so that I'll know exactly what do you mean. I'll wait one - three days, if you will not reply, I'll consider you have no further objections. Ryanspir (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir.

Please don't hector people on their talk pages and issue them with deadlines - many of us have a busy life that means we can't guarantee to answer within a few days. Discussions about articles should stay on the talk page. Mikenorton (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You are constantly insulting. I'm not issuing a deadline, but I cannot wait forever for an objection, it's reasonable, isn't it? I post on your talk page because I'm not sure if you have gotten indication that I have replied to your objections on the silver talk page. Ryanspir (talk) 12:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)ryanspir

How Can I Become A Participant?

Hi! I'm Seismologist76. I always wanted to help wikipedia with earthquake information for a long time from before I became a Wikipedian! That is why I thought being a participant in the WikiProject Earthquakes would be a start. But I don't really know exactly what participants do other than discuss, and I don't know how to become a participant in the first place (I can't find a help page for that)... I'm also kind of worried that I might not be much of a help at all... since I go to school tons (I'm 15) Since you're the project coordinator, would you be able to help me? Seismologist76 (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi there and welcome to the project. The main thing that participants do is to create or expand articles on earthquakes or seismology and to keep an eye on articles that are part of the project. I've added two links to the project page for 'Open Tasks' that anyone can lend a hand with, involving expanding articles in need of that or creating articles for earthquakes that killed at least 5,000 people - we should have articles on all of these (actually we should probably have articles on all earthquakes that have killed more than 50 people). For the watchlist see Wikiproject Watchlist - WikiProject Earthquakes. If you would like to create an earthquake article but are not sure where to start or find the whole thing a little daunting - either put a message on the project talk page asking for help or contact one of the active participants (such as myself or Dawnseeker2000). If that is what interests you, then start building an article in your personal sandbox. This means that you can take your time assembling information - there's no hurry here (except occasionally with articles for earthquakes that have just happened). I hope that this helps. Mikenorton (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much! It was a big help! I thought you had to be a very very special person to be a participant. I will do my best! Seismologist76 (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Earthquakes

No worries. Happens all the time. Bearcat (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Mystery mineral

I just wanted to alert you to this Science desk question. Bus stop (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but it looks like it's already been identified - I thought slag as soon as I saw it and the silicon carbide example is a dead ringer. Mikenorton (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I was interested to know your opinion on that. Bus stop (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Awesome

Thank you for the awesome graphic! I love maps; they're probably the most useful images on all of Wikipedia. Do you think the geology section needs fine-tuning? I saw your comment at the talk page, but I'm not really sure how to make it more accessible without leaving obnoxious, wordy explanations after every new term. There are already so many of them. ceranthor 19:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's OK - that sort of image is really easy to produce. Actually I'm aiming for a complete reorganisation and rewrite, with the regional setting first, followed by the geology of Qeshm, before finally getting into the details of the earthquake. I'll work on this in a sandbox and then look at the accessibility issues before I release onto an unsuspecting world :). Mikenorton (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good to me. To be honest I wrote all of these articles such a while ago that I'm sort of embarassed by the clunkiness of my writing. Practice makes perfect, I suppose. Thanks for your help. ceranthor 20:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I cannot express my gratitude for your invaluable help. Thank you so very much! I am also adding you as a co-nom; it's the very least I can do. Thank you, thank you! ceranthor 16:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I went through and finished up most of the other comments. Still left are crustal shortening and relationship between depth and damage, and I have no properly scholarly sources for either. Would you mind attending to these? Perhaps we need a proper article for crustal shortening... it's still a redlink! ceranthor 18:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking for a source for the focal depth damage relationship in Iran, but haven't found anything yet - I'll keep on looking. I'll also think some more about the 'shortening' issue - I should probably redirect your redlink to thrust tectonics. Mikenorton (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Any progress yet? If not we can always just leave it out until we can find something suitable to back it up. The shortening issue -- I think -- has been resolved. ceranthor 19:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I've been out a lot, so only just got to this - I found this source [1], which says (my emphasis) "There are many interrelated factors that determine the extent of loss of property and life from an earthquake. Each of the following should be prefaced with "other factors being equal . . . ."
  • Amount of seismic energy released: The greater the vibrational energy, the greater the chance for destruction.
  • Duration of shaking: This is one of the most important parameters of ground motion for causing damage.
  • Depth of focus, or hypocenter: The shallower the focus (the point of an earthquake's origin within the earth), usually the greater the potential for destructive shock waves reaching the earth's surface. Even stronger events of much greater depth typically produce only moderate shaking at ground level. " Mikenorton (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
If you don't mind, may I add:
Loss estimates in real time for earthquakes worldwide and (User:MaxWyss): "the extent of loss of property and life from an earthquake", depends on the construction style as well, Haiti has in comparison to Chile more losses. Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Chris, this is discussing text for the 'Background' section of the 2005 Qeshm earthquake article , currently up for FA. I think that the construction style is already adequately covered, but suggest some changes if you think that's not the case. Mikenorton (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks

for updating the link. Now I can read the article. :D Kayau (talk · contribs) 11:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick Edit Thanks

I was dumping my month old sandbox into the article on the Baikal Rift Zone and had just posted it, then, suddenly, I saw that it had been edited when I checked its history. I thought it was a bot, then I noticed it was you. Wanted to stop by to note how quick you were with that fix. It must be on your watch list?

Postscript: I think that the article could get a did you know nomination with only a hundred more words and a lot of fixing up. This was not my intention, I was just clearing out a sandbox. --Al Climbs (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I've been intending to expand it for a while now, but I have too many things that I am trying to do at any one time, so good to see that happening. I'll try to find some time to take a more thorough look at it - I don't like it being called a divergent plate boundary because most rift zones don't end up that way (I spend most of my day job looking at failed rift zones), but it is described as such in sources so I have to live with it. Mikenorton (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Old boy (2)

You may be interested in this recent template addition. If there are any omissions let me know or just bang 'em in - but see also ye talke page. I've avoided items with only tangential relevance, although come to think of it this little slippage is a significant feature on Arran, which I'll add asap. Ben MacDui 12:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Next year

2012 was a productive year for WP Earthquakes & am looking forward for more of the same next year. Thanks for all you do around here (like keeping an eye on my talk page :)

Dawnseeker2000 20:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm conscious of being less than diligent regarding WP Earthquakes. Thanks for updating the project page when I don't get round to it and for all your other contributions. It was all getting a bit to much for me a few months ago, but I seem to be past that, so perhaps I can get back to producing some earthquake articles again.
Best wishes to you for the New Year, here's to future collaboration. Mikenorton (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. So glad I gave you the leadership. Thanks so much for all you do! ceranthor 20:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ceranthor, a Happy New Year to you as well. Mikenorton (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Grr, I wish we were getting reviews. Alas, there's little we can do. ceranthor 03:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Well I'm not short of things to do - currently attempting to write a Geology of Skye article in time for the Skye article's appearance on the main page, although I'm going a bit too slowly on that. Mikenorton (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
No worries. We're nearly there. Just need more reviews! ceranthor 14:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geology of Skye, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Qeshm

The article's shaped up a great deal thanks to your help. It's a pretty awesome experience to watch an article develop. Often I find my articles improve a great deal at FAC over what seem like a million minor changes.

Also, thanks for getting involved when you didn't have to at all, and for being there to address comments when I was busy. It's appreciated, Mike. Hopefully we'll be able to improve the article even more. I really enjoyed working with you on it. ceranthor 17:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Not to worry, it's an interesting experience, I'm most concerned about improving the readability of the two technical sections, but I'm not sure that it's possible to use less technical language without making it really clumsy - we'll see. Mikenorton (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
We did it! ceranthor 01:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Good news, thanks Ceranthor. Mikenorton (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations to you both. Ben MacDui 09:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ben. I was glad to see Skye on the MP the other day. ceranthor 12:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations Mikenorton --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks MacDui,Chris - and on the main page in 12 days time - it went very quickly at the end. Mikenorton (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: 2005 Qeshm earthquake

This is a note to let the main editors of 2005 Qeshm earthquake know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 10, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 10, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The 2005 Qeshm earthquake was a powerful seismic event that occurred on November 27, 2005, on the sparsely populated Qeshm Island off Southern Iran. It killed 13 people and devastated 13 villages. It was Iran's second major earthquake of 2005, following that at Zarand in February. The epicenter was about 1,500 kilometers (930 mi) south of Tehran. The earthquake registered 5.8 on the moment magnitude scale. More than 400 minor aftershocks followed the main quake, 36 of which were greater than magnitude 2.5. The earthquake occurred in a remote area during the middle of the day, limiting the number of fatalities. Iranian relief efforts were effective and largely adequate, leading the country to decline offers of support from other nations and UNICEF. Qeshm Island is part of the Simply Folded Belt, the most seismically active part of the Zagros fold and thrust belt. Similar to most earthquakes in the area, the 2005 event resulted from reverse slip faulting. Since Iran lies in such a seismically active area, there is a high risk of destructive earthquakes; 1 in 3,000 deaths are attributable to earthquakes. One geophysicist has cited the lack of strict building codes as a serious concern. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As a little token of my thanks...

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
It was a pleasure to collaborate on 2005 Qeshm earthquake, and it is thanks to you that it now has the featured article star at the top right. This is for all you do as the coordinator of WikiProject Earthquakes and as an editor. ceranthor 23:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words Ceranthor, I will do my best to live up to them. Mikenorton (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sandfall/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandfall

Hi. I wondering if you would care to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandfall concerning the article Sandfall. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Earthquake prediction (again)

Hi, Mike. I thought I had those fires out and overhauled, but no such luck — he's baaaaaaccckk! And I would really appreciate it if you (or anyone else?) could offer some third opinions at Talk:Earthquake prediction as to repeated tagging, fringe material, etc. Thanks. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi JJ, I've been away for a couple of weeks and I'm still struggling to edit from a smartphone (it's me that's not smart, not the phone). I'll take a look soon, although I have a bit of a backlog to get through. Mikenorton (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

WP Earthquakes in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Earthquakes for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to add your responses to the interview. It is scheduled to publish in April, so you're not too late. –Mabeenot (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Bangui Magnetic Anomaly

It is a long time since we exchanged messages w.r.t National Geological monuments of India. I have come across an interesting phenomenon called the Bangui Anomaly in the Central African Republic. Your knowledge of geology would be helpful. Will you pl join us on this article? Thanks.--Nvvchar. 04:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it has been a long time. I'll take a look at the article this evening - there are plenty of sources out there, particularly those discussing the origin of the anomaly. Mikenorton (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Well that didn't quite work out - I forgot that I had a meeting, hopefully tomorrow evening. Mikenorton (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Please add the img to the hook also and add your name to the credit list, please. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 04:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I think Bangui Magnetic Anomaly might be the first article where we've worked together. Another new one which might interest you: World Digital Magnetic Anomaly Map. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added an image that I uploaded to Commons and I'll add it to the nomination - I've put in an OTRS request just in case there are concerns about whether it is truly Public Domain. I also have a cropped version that I could upload, if you think that would look better. I'll take a look at the WDMAP article. Mikenorton (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, should be PD-NASA. Can you expand Geology of Togo, spotted it on new pages?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there's a rash of them, Geopersona has been creating a series of stubs (five so far but the template at the bottom of each page suggests that there's at least another 47 to go). Mikenorton (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Mike . . err, yes there are many more redlinks in that table. Having come across it I thought I might rise to the challenge by creating a few stubs then fleshing them out later - or indeed hoping their existence might stimulate others to take an interest in African geology. Of course there's an argument for simply inserting a geology section into existing country articles or 'geography of x' articles - I would value your thoughts. By the way I was myself moved to take a closer look at African geology after reading a main article in this week's New Scientist on the subject of Wikipedia and the crisis/es it may be facing - what?, again? Therein is mention of the scarcity of articles on African topics. cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I think that we do need to increase our coverage of African geology (I personally far prefer to have stand alone 'Geology of X' articles), it's just my normal frustration at not having enough time to expand so many new articles. In the day job I've worked on data from Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Nigeria, Gabon, Namibia and Kenya, so I should be able to help out more easily with those when I get the chance. Perhaps you could post something on the WP Geology talk page, proposing that African geology should be the next "collaboration of the month"? Mikenorton (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Bangui Magnetic Anomaly

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for World Digital Magnetic Anomaly Map

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Location map Italy North relief

... answered on my talk page; also posted a short reply over there. Michael! (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

... reply on my talk page. Michael! (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
... more. Michael! (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

1979 Imperial Valley earthquake

Hi Mike. I've taken a look at the requirements and for GA and, as it stands, the article is solid and seems to match the conditions. I went ahead and nominated the article, and thought I should let you know, but I've no idea how much work this might involve. I'll have the time to work on it should any requests be made. If this turns out good there's a couple more to do. Have a great rest of your weekend, Dawnseeker2000 04:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the long wait before replying, I will be happy to help out once the review begins - thanks for letting me know. Mikenorton (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

China clay extraction in Cornwall; copper extraction & copperware

Hello again, (1) Fairly recently I noticed that various articles mentioning china clay were out of date since action by Imerys. I have not tried to find reliable sources for what happened but if property development is going on there must be news stories about the planning problems &c. However slow it is a big change for Cornwall; the waste tips begin dazzling white and if left alone eventually vegetation colonizes them but much of the waste is heavily processed quartz and no use to a plant. (2) Copper and copperware: another interesting article is Coppersmith which is better in the German WP. British centres of copperware are mentioned as Newlyn and Keswick. Elsewhere in the world there are centres of making and trading in copper and brassware for domestic and religious uses; certainly these have existed in Iberia and India. Would some more background information on the copper mines of those countries be relevant? (The King James Version of the Bible has "Alexander the Coppersmith" in Asia Minor; other biblical versions are not so precise, e.g. Italian "ramajo"=includes coppersmiths, tinsmiths).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Baikal Rift Zone

I remember you had some interest in Baikal Rift Zone the last time I edited it. I have the draft User:Al Climbs/Baikal Rift Zone, now. I don't know how much time you have (never enough is too often the answer), but if you have some time to look it over, feel free to edit it. If you can get some people together to say that's it's better (I have been made overly cautious about WP:Consensus), feel free to move it.--Al Climbs (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

subjectiveness of Mercalli scale

Hello

I'll start with making clear that I'm not a professional, just some guy who happens to want to have a clear picture about the Mercalli (modified, whatever, as it's used today) scale. This is why I chose to write just to you, as I saw you're the coordinator of the relevant Wiki project, as opposed to joining the project to which I don't feel I have much to contribute.

My problem is that it isn't clear to me from the Wiki page if this scale measures local intensity of a quake or perceived intensity / effects / damages. As I'm sure you agree, these are distinct issues. A hypothetical but relevant situation, say there are 2 places that are about 500 km away from the center of a strong earthquake. They are 10 km away from each other so the intensity in both places is practically the same. In one place there's a very solid building that has no damage, while in the other place there's a shabby one that collapses entirely. Question: is the Mercalli value the same in both places, or radically different ?

I have to say that to me it's not at all clear from the Wiki page. Based on what I read there, I tend to believe that the latter is the case. Specifically:

"The scale quantifies the effects of an earthquake on the Earth's surface, humans, objects of nature, and man-made structures on a scale from I (not felt) to XII (total destruction)."

"Data gathered from people who have experienced the quake are used to determine an intensity value for their location."

"The lower degrees of the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale generally deal with the manner in which the earthquake is felt by people. The higher numbers of the scale are based on observed structural damage."

"The Mercalli scale is not defined in terms of more rigorous, objectively quantifiable measurements such as shake amplitude, shake frequency, peak velocity, or peak acceleration."

OTOH, I went to Britannica and I get a somewhat different picture there. See

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/176199/earthquake/247985/Surface-phenomena#toc247986

There is considerable less emphasis here on the subjective nature of the scale. I understand that they're saying that the intensity is objectively measured, and the effects table they provide is just for one to make an idea of what these values generally mean. Furthermore, they say that if the earth conditions were the same around the center of a quake, the isoseismal curves would be circles. Which means they don't depend on how strong the buildings are in various points.

So, basically, from the Britannica page I'd understand that Mercalli is indeed an objective measure of the intensity of a quake in a given point, while from the Wiki page it's not clear but it seems that it's subjective. Britannica says that in my example above the 2 places have the same Mercalli value, while Wiki seems to say (at least to me) that the values are radically different. I think this needs some clarification.

Regards

V. Simionescu

VSimio (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Isoseismal lines are never circles, so Britannica has that wrong - their shape is elongate along the trend of the fault responsible for the earthquake. They could be ellipses however, with their perfection dependant on ground conditions only. Unavoidably however, in areas of poorly constructed buildings, the recorded intensity will be greater than in an area with seismically resistant building designs - if all the buildings in an area are destroyed then it will likely be recorded as intensity X or more, even if they are all constructed from adobe. If there are enough accelerographs installed in buildings in the areas affected, then an accurate picture of the peak ground acceleration and peak ground velocity will emerge and these days this can be directly linked to the Mercalli intensity [2]. In areas which lack such instrumentation, estimates of the intensity must still rely on first hand accounts of the perceived effects, which are necessarily more qualitative. However, the scale does refer to differences in damage to different types of building so it does take some account of this. In the past, earthquake researchers made use of standard questionnaires circulated throughout the affected area. Now this can all be done online, however, someone still has to interpret the results to give a figure for a particular location, so this will always be subjective to some degree [3], [4], [5], [6]. I will take another look at the article, but at first sight, it seems OK - I note that Britannica states "the strength of the shaking is commonly estimated by reference to intensity scales that describe the effects in qualitative terms" (my emphasis), which sounds subjective to me. Mikenorton (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for answering.
Sorry but I still don't get it.
So, in my example, will the Mercalli value for the 2 places be more or less the same or radically different ?
You say that "Unavoidably however, in areas of poorly constructed buildings, the recorded intensity will be greater than in an area with seismically resistant building designs" - is this because of limitations of the estimation, or is it the way Mercalli is defined ? VSimio (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)I indented your reply - I hope that was OK
What I mean is that if an area only has poor quality housing it's likely to get a higher Mercalli intensity recorded, because it lacks the better engineered buildings that would allow a more accurate estimate. With enough observations, however, it should all even out. It is a limitation of the method, but without direct measurements of ground acceleration and/or velocity it's all we've got. Historical earthquakes from centuries ago have had isoseismal maps drawn based on recorded eye witness accounts (see for example 1693 Sicily earthquake) allowing estimates to be made of magnitude, which is really important when estimating present earthquake risk. Mikenorton (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, so it looks like we're finally getting somewhere. So, the short answer is that the dependence on the solidity of the buildings is just a limitation of the estimation method, not by the definition, right ? And in my example the 2 places have the same Mercalli value. As it would be logical. Now I'm pretty confident I got it right. (:-)
Sorry but I have to say this is not at all clear from the article. I'm not going to rewrite it myself of course, but somebody should. It's an important point. VSimio (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Help at Wikidata

Hi Mike! I was wondering if I could recruit your help over at Wikidata another time (You helped me to approve the items hanging, footwall and interleaving). I'm currently trying to link every stratigraphic unit on Wikipedia with the country-specific stratigraphic database. The advantage would be that this link could be added to the infobox, providing more professional readers the ability to look at the in depth record of a unit. I currently have the German and English (UK) databases up for proposal at d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/References#Litholex_ID_.2F_Litholex_Prim.C3.A4rschl.C3.BCssel. I would also use those properties for citations of the most basic statements about a formation. (Nice example of what I've got so far: d:Q2566050). Can you think of any more databases to add? You can add them here: d:Wikidata:Stratigraphy_task_force --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geology of the Isle of Wight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portland Group (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Slickensides.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Slickensides.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Subduction01.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Time of the 1920 Haiyuan earthquake

In case it falls off your watchlist, I responded at Talk:1920 Haiyuan earthquake § Time. Sorry for the delay. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Granite may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Category:Felsic rocks]]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dead Sea Transform, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transform (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

knowledge of earthquakes
Thank you for sharing your interest in geology and what makes the earth move, writing your own articles on earthquakes and improving those of others, repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian, 10 July is your day!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 177th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Something interesting

Considering you've written Zagros fold and thrust belt and you're contributing on earthquake articles, I suggest you to check sh:article Potresi u Iranu (Earthquakes in Iran). A 300kb piece with most comprehensive list of historical earthquakes, influence on culture, all quake-related toponyms, faults with data, relevant analyses... Beside all, you won't find words HAARP or boobquake. What do you think? --109.165.138.128 (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Skype

Oh and could you give me the newest Skype too? Pubserv (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Request

Can you provide me to a link to Spiral Garden on advance wars dual strike on CyberScore? Pubserv (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

9.6 chile 1960 EQ

USGS says it is not 9.5 but 9.6: http://comcat.cr.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/centennial19600522191117#summary Pubserv (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Don't you think you'd put this in your to-do list? Or edit it? Pubserv (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've explained my view on the talk page of Lists of earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Flash Player Firefox 64-bit offline installer link.

Can you give me a link to a flash player offline installer for firefox 64-bit? Because I can't find those pages on my computer if I don't have the link, and can't access pages where that link is (but can access the link, if I have it). Pubserv (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Pubserv, I get by on computers but I'm not that technically literate with them, I have a son who sorts those things out for me - take this as an answer to your other two queries as well. Mikenorton (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Oil shale and bituminous shale

Hi, Mikenorton. There is a proposal to merge Oil shale and Bituminous shale articles. Could you please comment this and if you are supporting the merge, could you help with this. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Beagel, I've started a discussion for the merge at Talk:Bituminous shale#Proposed merge (and added links to the merge tags) and supported the merger there. It looks to be a historic term (pre-1910) for this rock type. Mikenorton (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Mikenorton. It seems that there is a consensus about the merge. Could you, please, help to make this merge? As Oil shale is FA and geology is not the strongest part of my knowledge, it would be better if the merger is done by some more experienced editor in this field. Beagel (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Beagel, I will be away from a computer for the next week and I don't trust my smartphone, but I will do my best when I get back. Mikenorton (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you very much. Beagel (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Mikenorton. Nice to see you are back. Have you had a time to look the merger of these articles? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder - I should manage it this evening (if I don't, feel free to plague me until I do). Mikenorton (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, as with so many things, it's a little more complicated than I thought. Basically it has been used a synonym for oil shale but the term is also used for any organic-rich shale with the distinction that only oil shale will yield significant amounts of liquid hydrocarbons on pyrolysis (because it has a significant kerogen content). For the latter case I have a USGS report from 1925, but I'm having more trouble in finding a source that simply states that they're synonyms - I will keep on looking. Mikenorton (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. This was the reason why I hesitated to do the merge myself. Beagel (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Shetland complex

Hi Mike. After much prevarication I am finally within sight of getting St Magnus Bay into mainspace. I have a draft in a sandbox with a short attempt at the local geology. If you have a few moments I'd appreciate it if you could check it for any howlers - in particular I am not sure I have properly understood the relationship between the rock types and their chronological sequence. Ben MacDui 11:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi MacDui, I have a copy of the BGS 1:250,000 geological map of Shetland, which shows that there is probable Permo-Triassic sediments covering at least part of the floor of the bay, beneath Quaternary sediments (see also a PhD thesis - including link to full text pdf). I'm a bit stretched right now, but I'll try to add something to your draft over the next few days. Mikenorton (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Much obliged and no hurry. Ben MacDui 13:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Naming of historical Japanese earthquakes

hi there, thank you for your message. The moves were based on this existing article 1933 Sanriku earthquake. It is not called "1933 Shōwa Sanriku earthquake" as far as I can tell. The earthquakes need to have a consistent naming format, either by showing the Japanese era name and the location, which is how the earthquakes are named in the Japanese language for the most part. Or go with the western calendar year. But you cannot add a western calendar year and add the era name with it, because that makes it factually incorrect. The 869 Sanriku earthquake took place in the western year 869 CE, or in 11 Jōgan. 869 Jōgan does not exist. Gryffindor (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Azores hotspot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Changing links to redirects to piped links

I noted your 8 January edit at Oceanic crust. You might wish to read Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. --Bejnar (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I was unaware that such a guideline existed, although in this case it turned out that I wasn't avoiding a redirect, but pointing at the main article rather than the shorter section in the basalt article (as that was where Vsmith redirected the 'pillow basalt' page). Mikenorton (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nanded earthquakes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fault (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lickey Hills, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horst (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Antonio Vivaldi

Hi. I do not remember making that edit. I think it might have been another IP address or a bot. 77.100.29.142 (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Earthquakes in fracking

I tracked down an article siting Earthquakes, which has been removed. It is important to state that WE are causing earthquakes in this economic venture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GESICC (talkcontribs) 02:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a section on seismicity already in the article (with supporting references) and this is mentioned in the lead section using the term "seismic activity", which redirects to the earthquake article. Considering how few felt earthquakes have been caused directly by fracking, that seems sufficient. Mikenorton (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hydraulic fracturing

Hi, Mikenorton. I tried to organize Hydraulic fracturing and related articles in more logical way to avoid overlappings and POVFORK. It mainly means that I tried to summarize the Environmental section of Hydraulic fracturing while more specific information was moved to Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. I would like to ask you to take a look of the summarized section and make more summarizing, if necessary, or restored information which you think should be in this umbrella article. However, even more important to make a cleanup of Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. They are loaded with information, but it needs extensive cleanup and copyediting (and checking sources to discover potential original research) to make them decent articles. There are still some overlappings between these two articles. I hope you could help with this. Beagel (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Beagel, and first of all, thanks for putting so much time and effort into the HF articles, although it does sometimes seem to be two steps forward, one step back, they're a lot better than they were, mainly thanks to you. I've been somewhat lacking the time and energy to contribute as I once did, although I've been spending a bit more time on Wikipedia again recently. Working on the HF articles hasn't been very pleasant at times, with the repeated COI accusations, and I admit this has put me off. I will try and look at the two environmental impact of HF articles, although I'm not sure that I'll be able to do the 'root and branch' editing they probably need. Remind if I seem to have forgotten. Mikenorton (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom

Mike, would you mind having a look at Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom, I am having difficulty explaining to another editor why his edits are unencyclopedic and could be considered too promotional. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I've been watching, hoping that things would get sorted out following your helpful explanations, but I agree that it's the opposite problem to the one that we've become accustomed to. I'm away for the next few days, but I'll try to find time to look at this when I get back. Sorry not be more immediately helpful. Mikenorton (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Oil shale in Estonia

Hi, Mike. You have said that oil shale is not your area; however, taking account your background I would still like to request you to take a look of the 'Resource' section in the Oil shale in Estonia article. I have recently worked with this article to bring it to GA and later FA level. I would be grateful if you as a geologist could say if something is missing there or needs to be corrected/clarified. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ouestion. There is a question about the picture capture used in this article (as also in the Oil shale and Oil shale geology article). Editor wrote here: Here's a really picayune quibble - the caption for the picture in the lead calls it an outcropping of Kukersite. But my understanding of an outcrop is that it spontaneously, no human intervention, appears above ground. Which doesn't seem applicable to Kukersite, because the section talks a lot about its overburden. Also the picture looks like it was taken at a mine. How about changing the caption to leave out the word outcropping? Could you please comment this issue. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)