User talk:Mikenorton

Your place or mine ...?

I generally prefer unbroken discussions. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it here — my talk page — as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. Similarly, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there.

At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Welcome!

Hello, Mikenorton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Wow youve been doing all that editing in an important area and no one has said g'day (saw your work on Perth basin) anyway looks like youre doing well! SatuSuro 10:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your excellent expansion of Domus Aurea (Antioch). ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, it means a great deal receiving it from a mastermind such as yourself. Mikenorton (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Meneage cont'd

P.S. The map shows "spillite" (i.e. spilite) but I wonder where this is now described and whether this could be clarified.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, I wasn't trying to ignore you. Spilites are essentially basalts that have been altered by sodium metasomatism such that they contain for instance albite rather than their normal labradorite. It is however a term that has fallen out of use pretty much, with the more general 'metabasalt' or 'metabasite' being used these days. Perhaps I could add in something to the bit on 'in place' volcanics that they used to be described as spilites. I'll take a look. Mikenorton (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that would help: it shows that the map is too simple to convey much about the Meneage geology but there may not be a better one. The author of that map does not contribute much to WP Cornwall now. Best wishes.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sentences on the metamorphism, which explains about them being considered spilites originally. The map is fine for the Lizard, but perhaps a separate one for the Meneage would be good. I'll see if I can come up with one. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 893 Dvin earthquake

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Peru earthquakes.

OK. I think I may have misunderstood the idea of categories somehow. I think it would be a good idea if on this page (and any similar ones), you could have a “collapsable/collapsed” listing, such as is used for many footballers with respect to their international goals. (See e.g. “Mixu Paatelainen”, for whom I’ve done all the statistics.) Then you would not have to go to a separate page, but just click on the “show/hide” button. I think it would be handy thing to have, and it would also prevent misunderstandings of this kind that I seem to have had, on more than one occasion. Apanuggpak (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Still on Peru earthquakes

Hi, Thanks for your message. I noticed you’re a geologist. If you look at the List of earthquakes in Peru, you’ll see that I’ve added a few there. Do you think they are OK (even if for most the data is n/a)? Based on the magnitudes I’ve found for them, they should be major quakes. And the 1746 Lima-Callao earthquake, I wrote an article on it, with some very rare contents from a local library of Russian books. I’ve asked a geologist friend of mine to look at it before I actually create the article. But do you think it’s another megathurst one? And do you think the title would be OK? Or should the title be changed somehow before creating the article? Apanuggpak (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply to you here if that's OK, I keep forgetting what I've said if the conversation is in two places. It's very likely to be another megathrust event, based on the tsunami that destroyed Callao, although that's not absolute proof it does suggest an epicenter underwater and therefore most likely on the plate interface (or megathrust). Also confirmed by this source. As to the title it sounds OK, unless there's an alternative that turns up in a lot of sources, after a quick look '1746 Lima earthquake' or similar is most common. I would be very happy to look at your article, whenever you bring it online. I created the 1687 Peru earthquake article and jointly created the 1868 Arica earthquake, so I'm familiar with some of the sources of information that are available. Mikenorton (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Very happy to hear that! Apanuggpak (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I talked to my geologist friend today. He said this 1746 quake is so well known that it should be a textbook example in geology. However, he’s a bit busy with other things, so if it’s OK, I’d like to ask you to look at the “Tectonic setting” section. It’s in my personal sandbox, which you’ll find in my contributions. If this is possible, it would speed things up, as my friend would then only have check the Russian to English translation that I did. Apanuggpak (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look. My most recent earthquake articles were the 115 Antioch earthquake and 893 Dvin earthquake, one of which lays claim to be in the top 10 most destructive historic events and the other which spawned the 893 Ardabil earthquake, which never actually happened, even though its in the USGS top 10. There's still lots to do on earthquakes on Wikpedia. Mikenorton (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I finally created the article, but I thought maybe it would be best if you added you contribution under your own name; perhaps that would lend the bit a bit more credibility; also it would show your authorship on that bit. Perhaps you could also see if everything else is OK. I’m not sure the references actually go to the right place; I could not find the magnitude where I thought it had been. But I guess these things can be corrected over time by people who have more expertise than I do. But anyway, it would be nice to know what you think of the quote from Khlebnikov. Apanuggpak (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I made some changes and I will expand it more with the sources that I've found. I don't think that the last section on magnitude estimation should stay, as the Doorbath et al. 1990 ref explains the methodology - using both damage reports and modelling of tsunami heights. The Khlebnikov quote is good. I intend to nominate this at WP:DYK in the next few days, I'll consult with you over the 'hook'. Mikenorton (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Wow, a WP:DYK! I wish I had more stuff like Khlebnikov… But I guess I should write an article on the man himself! Apanuggpak (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, what you’ve done looks really good! Concerning the DYK, I left my suggestions to my talk page; also, I notice we didn’t have a reference to the article List of earthquakes in Peru, so I thought it would be good to have it in a new “See also” section. Apanuggpak (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again! I added a few things from one of your sources, I hope it went OK. But the same source indicates that one writer had the death toll at 18,000. What to think of this? Apanuggpak (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've moved things around some and removed the duplicated aftershocks bit (although I've incorporate the 200 in 24 hrs part). I've rewritten a couple of sections because they were too close to the original source. DYK has recently become more careful over problems with too close paraphrasing of sources. Although NGDC is a federal government source, the information about individual earthquakes are quotes from copyrighted sources, so we either present them in quotes or rewrite them completely. The dividing line is a fine one between potential copyright violation on the one hand and possible original research or synthesis on the other but it's something that all contributors to Wikipedia need to work towards. I hope that you don't mind me raising this. The 18,000 source may be one of those that includes the effects of the subsequent epidemics, so probably best to leave it out. I also added two more sources on the reconstruction and the tsunami effects at Pisco. Hopefully the nomination will get reviewed before too long, but the backlog is rather big at the moment. Mikenorton (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it seems I just missed the front page… I hadn’t logged in for a few pages. Didn’t know the contents change 3 times a day. Quite something for me, in any case. But anyway, the forgotten item (by me) in this discussion: casualties. The 18,000 or 29,000 figure had been in the article List of earthquakes in Peru, which I now changed to ca. 6,000. I hope you will keep up the good work on earthquakes, and should you do more articles on Peru, for example, please check the article mentioned above to see that it is in line with the main article on whichever quake is concerned. There may be a couple of quakes in Alaska a couple of centuries ago on which I have material in my bookshelf, and I hope we can co-operate some more if I find time to write on them. Apanuggpak (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be very happy to collaborate on other earthquake articles - it looks like there are a lot of Peru earthquakes that still need an article, but I work on them as and when I come across them. Mikenorton (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Mikenorton! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

DYK for 856 Damghan earthquake

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 115 Antioch earthquake

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 1746 Lima-Callao earthquake

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mikenorton. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sjense2 (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 1703 Genroku earthquake

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Peter Percival

As we try to bring back to life, those who worked so hard in their fields many years ago, thank you for your citation. Kanatonian (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was trying to keep close to the original hook, so went looking for more details - it will be up to an admin as to what actually goes on the main page, Kevin and I can only propose. Mikenorton (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, whether it goes in the main page or not is not that important but what is important is that process usually leads to a better article . After I am done with these articles, no one really touches them for years only an occasional vandalism here and there or a Bot doing its work once a while. The article about Peter Pervival will stay static once I move onto another one:( Kanatonian (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your work on cutting down the backlog of DYK nominations, particularly those over two weeks: your copy-edits to help improve the articles, and you display diligence, scrutiny and precision with each review. Nice work! Harrias talk 18:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

But Ben, you're going at twice my speed - I hope that someone gives you one! Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I got some flowers, and am I really twice your speed, or half your diligence?! Harrias ^talk 18:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Grand Parade

Hello, Mikenorton. You have new messages at Tigerboy1966's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for 1969 Yangjiang earthquake

Orlady (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC) 00:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

DYKCheck clarification

Thanks for explaining how it came up with that result - I couldn't see it myself. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, sometimes it's really hard to work out which versions it's using for its calculation. Mikenorton (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Reward dependence

The author of the article Reward dependence has responded about the copyvio issues on his DYK nomination page. I do not intend to play any further part in the discussion and will leave it to you/others who know more about such things. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

PS I am now making use of the Duplicate Detector in other DYK reviews.

I've given the nomination the go ahead now - all looks fine, so it'll be my neck on the block if I've failed to spot anything. As to knowing more. I'm only just ahead of you, as I only started being really thorough in this part of DYK reviewing a few months ago, but I still find some examples that I just can't decide on. It's definitely not easy. Mikenorton (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you for helping me with this article. I did remove the bolding and italicized very minimally. I also left the capitalizations in since those diagnostic terms are usually capitalized. Vishakavijayakumar (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

You did left new rentry "exactly values in tables later" and all the tables 2 about amounts and one for water purification, 2 charts showing decrease in water/air, one picture where tsunami hit, corerection for ankles that not confirmed and before values as high as chernobyl new intial values and about one tenth. Missing now that before wrong information and right at the beginning total death amount also for quake+tsunami and explanation why called catastrophe under governmet definition without deaths and this is not a german lead question with refernece on definition german Wikipedia if not in english Wikipedia but to be transfered like all tables and charts and pictures before. I don`saw now "but complex" nonsense citation at beginning like wrong ankles info. Also missing information about tsunami wall 3.12m asked 5.7m build reference Spektrum Wissenschaften Artikel and not only mSv values for ankles instead 2-3Sv 2000-6000mSv before without "not confirmed" and no explanation what 250mSv means just +1% cancer risk not cancer just some workers. Always another one just deleteting instead adding Spektrum Reference article... for download already talked. Information about situation was wrong there ? Also informing about mass of wrong information was going around proofed by Wikipedia itself german and english with extra section in german wikipedia also english W. to be opend also by yourself ? 95.88.168.248 (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Entry from Gautier lebon added later at later place and longer not bad mistake not only quake mainly tsunami killed some workers some found 3 weeks later in turbine house and some collapsing... significant not explained. "There were no deaths or serious injuries due to direct radiation exposures, but a few of the plant's workers were severly injured or killed by the disaster conditions resulting from the earthquake. At least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significant radiation doses. Future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have been estimated at between 100 and 1000 (much less than the approximately 20,000 people killed directly by the earthquake and tsunami). However the radiation exposure resulting from the accident for most people living in Fukushima is so small compared to background radiation that it may be impossible to find statistically significant evidence of increases in cancer. But fear of ionizing radiation could have long-term psychological effects on a large portion of the population in the contaminated areas." 95.88.168.248 (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)