User talk:Dawnseeker2000

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



As a long-term editor you should know far better than to start edit-warring, as you have at 1989 Newcastle earthquake. You should know to follow WP:BRD and discuss on the article's talk page. You shouldn't simply revert to your preferred version if another editor objects to your edits. It's up to you to establish consensus for the change and, while discussion is in progress the status quo reigns. Given how clear, and widely accepted the Bold-revert-discuss cycle is, it's rather hypocritical of you to leave edit summaries like this, telling others not to do exactly what you're doing yourself. --AussieLegend () 14:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Using an uninviting user-generated map when a USGS version is available is a poor decision. Tango/two. Dawnseeker2000 15:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. (for AussieLegend or anyoone else driving by)

Well, like I said, I was in a hurry because I was off to work. I didn't want to leave without saying something and one way to do that was to use the edit summary. I really didn't want to get into a discussion on the talk page, because there would be some never-ending take it out/leave it in back and forth battle, and I'm just not good at that. What I am good at is improving earthquake articles, and I found a rather glaring flaw in the homebrew isoseismal map in the 1989 Newcastle earthquake article. I did wind up posting to the talk page (more than 24 hours later) with a statement on why the image is not good for WP or the article, and with the same message about not wanting to go back and forth about it. I don't have the energy to do that. Next time, just save the previous page instead of using the revert button (which can come off as being rude) especially on an established editor. Thank you (no reply necessary) Dawnseeker2000 00:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S.S (for anyone interested in mischief on WP)

Well, I just noticed something odd about our little back and forth deal on 1989 Newcastle earthquake the other day. Was ready to dust myself off and resume my other activities here, but had a look at the edit history on that article and noticed an editor that reverted my last edit there. It looks to be a WP:SPA that was created during our little edit war (a few minutes prior to their one and only edit). I doubt we'll see any more of Editor35714 (talk · contribs). Sure doesn't smell good. Dawnseeker2000 01:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of 2008 Sichuan earthquake aftershocks 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to May 30, 1998 Afghanistan earthquake may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:
  • }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

2008 El Calvario earthquake
added a link pointing to Columbia
2013 Nariño earthquake
added a link pointing to Columbia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake Prediction[edit]

Dawnseeker2000, I saw your Talk comment at Earthquake Prediction (EP) and, in response, I had a look at some of the earthquake articles you've been editing. I haven't looked at all of them, but those that I've seen are very nice -- for example, the Armenian Earthquake article. As you probably know, the EP article needs attention, or at least several editors (including me) believe that it needs attention. At the same time, there is also some substantial resistance from other corner to making pretty much any change of the EP article. I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia, and so I'm learning to navigate some of these issues of collaboration and disagreement. Of course, I understand that it is the content (and style) that counts, not the expertise of the editors contributing the content (and style). So, on that basis, seeing the earthquake articles on which you've been working, I wonder if you might consider devoting some energy to the EP article. Let me just say that the subject is controversial, which makes it interesting for an Wikieditor, and it is important, which makes it interesting for a Wikieditor. What do you think? Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

1975 Haicheng earthquake[edit]

The 1975 Haicheng earthquake figures prominently in earthquake prediction. While I understand that you might not want to weigh in on Earthquake Prediction page, your attention to the 1975 Haicheng earthquake would be appreciated. What do you think? Thanks, DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi, thx for your help. I have split the paragraph in two, as I believe Grundmanns research with Max Planck is a great achievement and the comparision of the IPCC activities with the Ozone layer problem of general interest . Serten (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake properties on Wikidata[edit]

Have you thought of submitting a proposal on Wikidata to capture some of the basic properties of earthquakes? A couple of good places to get the discussion started are: wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject_Geology and wikidata:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Natural_science#Geology. I've never gone through the process of proposing new properties so I'd have to learn this by myself. --DarTar (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1965 Oaxaca earthquake may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • The '''1965 Oaxaca earthquake''' occurred in [[Mexico]] on August 23 at {{tooltip|13:46|19:46 UTC]]}} with a [[Moment magnitude scale|moment magnitude]] of 7.5.<ref>E. Chael, G. Stewart, "Recent

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for creating the new template for earthquakes in the United States.[edit]

I like the idea, and I noticed you were adding it to several articles. It's a good idea in my opinion. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

What's strange is that I hadn't noticed that we were lacking the template for events in the United States until just this weekend. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000


I saw you started a sort of cleanup, and fully agree with the need for that. I however have restored the one and only book so far and put together the human triggered tsunamis resepctively speculations about these. I hope thats OK and in line with your intention. Cheers Serten (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for consolidating the bomb stuff. I hadn't seen that. I posted on the talk page also, and like I said there, I removed the book entry again. I just think that's out of reach for most readers, and I really don't think the authors will want their complete papers available on Google Books for free. Also, I don't think the bulk of our readers are looking for that kind of material. Thanks for checking in, Dawnseeker2000 03:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Youre welcome. I would prefer people looked up the social science issues more and less the tekkie ghibberish, so I am sort of contradicting you in a single aspect. That said, go ahead with the good work, Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius ;) Serten (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, so we have the external links that will be available for everyone, and the further reading items that will be available to the small number of readers that have access to a library that would host that kind of material. All good, thanks. Dawnseeker2000 03:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe its a privilege to live in southern Germany. I would have no problem to get the books within one hours driving - even biking :) Serten (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


I usually try to notify users when I either upload over their files (enhancements and whatnot) or create a new version, and I meant to bring up that I replaced your file with an SVG: File:1989 Newcastle earthquake ShakeMap.svg. Dustin (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, since you seem to be a significant earthquake editor, I thought I would say, I am capable of converting some ShakeMaps to SVGs, so I'd like to know what you think. There is only about one other actual earthquake editor I know of to be active apart from you though, which is why I am just bringing this up here. Dustin (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good change. Thanks for that, and I think it's fine to do more of the same. Dawnseeker2000 16:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to PK (film) 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:
  • by the Hollywood film [ ''[[Paul<nowiki>]]]</nowiki>]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for reporting this IP address in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I was trying to dig into this IP's hostname in Robtex at, and found out that this IP was blacklisted in the Composite Blocking List blacklist. I then looked in there and found that it was infected with Conficker. I reasoned that since this machine was turned into a Conficker zombie computer, it could also be a patsy for other malware including possibly being hacked to being a zombie proxy. I have placed a check request at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies so that it can be confirmed. If it is confirmed, I believe that it will then be escalated to being blocked an all Wikimedia sites. Jesse Viviano (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I was just getting to work and pulled out my phone for a quick watchlist check, and that's the only reason I stumbled across this. Thanks for the update and for your help on this, Dawnseeker2000 18:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 15 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mount Pinatubo crater lake depth[edit]

Good day. I would like to know why the change about the depth of mt. Pinatubo crater lake has been reverted? The average depth of 100 meters can be verified by both scientific sources and offical sources (capas, tarlac and botolan, zambales). Thank you. Volcanolover2014 (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Escalation of user warnings[edit]

Hi, I see that you served three escalating warnings in five minutes to the same user. The first warning was justified; but the next two were not, because that user had not edited since your first warning - in fact, not for over 100 minutes before that. See WP:VAND#How to warn vandalizing users "A new warning generally should not escalate from a previous warning unless a user received the previous warning and failed to heed it." The second and third warnings were for edits to Wikipedia:Namespace (which they had not edited for 5 days) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (which they had not edited for 18 days). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That user is not here to help and needed a final warning, so I supplied it. We don't have time around here for that kind of crap. They're not an editor, they're either a vandal or incompetent. Dawnseeker2000 14:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You could have gone straight to {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but a lot of the time I like (in this fast paced environment) to leave individual notices that serve to help anyone else following along. I don't really enjoy this part of WP, but leaving an alternate record of events (other than contribs) for an admin (or anyone else) seems to be a good idea. About four years ago it was suggested that I do it this way. Thanks for stopping in. Dawnseeker2000 15:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for 1872 North Cascades earthquake[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia study- Thank you[edit]

Hello Dawnseeker2000, I hope you remember speaking to me in the summer of 2012 about your motivations for contributing to the health-related pages on Wikipedia. The great news is that the study got published this Wednesday in JMIR (Journal of Medical Internet Research). You can read it here: This would not have been possible without your contributions so once again, I would like to thank you for taking the time and sharing your experiences with me. I also wrote an entry about my own experience with the study, about additional observations and how I plan to further extend my research - published in the WMF blog today: you have any comments or questions please get in touch.Perhaps see you at the next Wikimania conference in Mexico! Best Wishes Hydra Rain (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!![edit]

Hello, Dawnseeker2000, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and ƬheStrikeΣagle 05:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

STiki logo.png

Proposed deletion of Carolyn Brinkworth[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Carolyn Brinkworth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable scientist; can find no non-trivial independent coverage

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC) and final warning[edit]

Hello, just thought I would stop by and let you know that I saw (talk · contribs)'s fourth edit and issued a level 3 warning after that for his third edit which was reverted by another IP, but no warning was issued for that one. Since he hasn't edited since the third warning, technically he should not receive a level 4. Additionally, the fourth edit was benign, merely removing a space. I leave it up to you, whether you want to remove the warning or not; it's not a huge issue either way. Just thought I would clarify what happened. Thanks --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 01:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I did look at each of their edits and saw that the last one was for the space removal. That's not malicious of course, but it's a taunt as well, so my message was "that's it, enough". Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 01:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


Instead of telling accounts or IPs that they're blocked, please raise the issue (with evidence!) at WP:SPI. It's rather unlikely that a sockpuppeteer who spends their time insulting and harassing you would stop editing because they genuinely weren't aware their behaviour is unacceptable, but the sockpuppet investigation can lead to blocks. You can use this link to add a report to the Imveracious SPI. Huon (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I just saw you're already doing so. Thanks. Huon (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Sanriku (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Springer
Sanriku Coast (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Springer
Seismicity of the Sanriku coast (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Springer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ref Order on 2016 Presidential Election[edit]

Thank you for your edits to the 2016 presidential election article. However please verify that references are in the right order after your edits. The oldest reference should go first. The last few edits you've made have caused many of the references to fall out of order.ObieGrad (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, fine if that's the way that article is done, and I'll exclude running AWB on that article in the future, but unless there's a way to prevent AWB from making changes to the article, anyone else that makes an AWB pass with it will probably make the same change. Thanks for letting me know, Dawnseeker2000 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Portland Oregon (March 7, 2015)[edit]

You are invited!

  • Saturday, March 7: Art+Feminism – noon to 5pm
    Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Portland Art Museum's Crumpacker Family Library (Mark Building, 2nd Floor; 1219 SW Park Avenue). Art+Feminism is a campaign to improve coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia. No Wikipedia editing experience necessary; as needed throughout the event, tutoring will be provided for Wikipedia newcomers. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.


Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The Fourteen Infallibles[edit]

Would you please help us to copy edit this article?Salman mahdi (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Earthquakes in Germany[edit]

Did you look at the talk page before you moved this to List of earthquakes in Germany? There was repeated relevant discussion, because the scope of the article is to explain the seismicity of the country as well as to list individual earthquakes, and it is not an exhaustive list. It wasn't moved before because those involved in editing it didn't seem to feel the "List" title was appropriate. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not, and may not had I seen that, but I think the standardization of our earthquake article titles is fine. Dawnseeker2000 20:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to move it back and start another talk page section on the issue, then. I'll leave it to you to notify the relevant wikiprojects. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like a good idea. You're going to argue over the words "list of"? A number of our earthquake lists include some discussion of the seismicity in general and are not always "pure" lists. It makes sense to use a standardized name. Dawnseeker2000 20:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Farhan chamber[edit]

A tag has been placed on User talk:Farhan chamber requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wgolf (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami[edit]

(diff | hist) . . 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami‎; 00:42 . . (-863)‎ . . ‎Dawnseeker2000 (talk | contribs)‎ (drop material – please use secondary sources) Have secondary sources (journal refs) system crashed and I couldn't find the way back. No desire to degrade article but think information is relevant AmyEBHC (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Hello Dawnseeker, I have a question for you (absolutely no criticism, an honest question). I looked at your edit to Sleep and noticed that you, more than once, reversed the order of two refs where they appear side-by-side. Is there a reason or a rule for which of two refs should come first? (I'm watching this page.) Regards, Hordaland (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, hello and good morning. For the most part I use AWB to do general fixes, and this includes ordering references. If it finds consecutive refs that are not in numerical order it will highlight that as a proposed change. There has to be a typo in the article for the program to (also) notify about these situations, but when it comes up I allow it to make the change. Dawnseeker2000 14:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks and good evening! (It's 19:28 here :) ) Learn something new every day. I've never used AWB and will study it; thanks for link. --Hordaland (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1979 Coyote Lake earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Juan Bautista (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) 08:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Thanks for your immediate edit on "2015 Nepal earthquake" page, regarding the typo I pointed out. Thanks!!! Akshay.C.S (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Sorry to bother you, but who apart from you actively edits earthquake-related articles? I was trying to come up with a new way to organize information and sections on an earthquake swarm draft I have been working on (the organization is currently really bad in my opinion), but I can't seem to find anyone (apart from you) to ask for advice, but if possible, I don't want to have to bother you every time I have an earthquake-related question. Dustin (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Mikenorton is the guru, but I don't know of anyone else that's currently active. There used to be at least one other editor around, and sometimes more. But no worries, I can give you what I think about the draft. I've looked at it a couple of times since you started it, and at them moment it says what it should; I mean, it's complete. It's chronological, and I think you could stick with that strategy, but it would be nice to somehow break it up into other readable chunks. What are the other aspects of what's going on there? Human-related activities. If there's a way to pull whatever material is present into a new section or sections on the different takes on those aspect(s) that would be key. You're bounded by what the sources are saying, and how they say it.
Is there any one person or group that has a strong opinion on the matter? Sometimes sources focus on one person's perspective. You could compare perspectives, if there are any, in their own sections. Bah, I'm not saying anything you don't already know. The articles that I've done show that it really comes down to what the sources are, how they say what they say, and how they compliment each other. If those things come together then usually the article has good structure and continuity. Sorry, rambling now. Dawnseeker2000 00:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the response! I don't know how active WP:Peer review is, but I was thinking that I might go there to see what should be trimmed and where I should expand (but in a specific suggestion by suggestion way so I can publish this draft and get it to C class). They aren't as specialized though, so I thought I'd try to get some input from a specialized editor. I'll try to work drawing some of the information out into more specialized sections (causes, other research) and try to make sure that, in the chronological part, that information is organized by what the relevant time period is rather than only by the order in which information is published (sorry if that statement is hard to understand because of bad wording). Again, thanks for the suggestions. Dustin (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that before I can move this draft to mainspace, I am currently using a special infobox which I created for swarms since {{Infobox earthquake}} did not seem sufficient. I don't think I am allowed to transclude pages from userspace in mainspace, but I don't think this would be a great idea to have as a separate template from {{Infobox earthquake}} in template namespace considering that it would only really be of use on very few pages. Do you have any ideas there? Thanks. Dustin (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well first, I should say that I don't really review a lot of good articles. I like to create, but am not as good at reviewing other people's work. So peer review might be OK, but just make sure you've exhausted all possible sources to get a feel for every possible aspect to it. This is kind of different from what I normally do, since it's usually the same types of subheadings that come up for the different earthquake articles. Also, there is probably some existing article that covers at least some of what you're writing about right? There are some sources in your article that mention fracking but I didn't see any of the terms linked. We do have a number of articles on hydraulic fracturing. Are those going to be of use in the article. That would open up a whole new set of possible sections.
Shouldn't we consider modifying the existing infobox earthquake to include fields that are specific to swarms? There really could be some major improvement to the couple of swarm articles that we have, and could open up possibilities for more to be created. I am working on List of earthquakes in California and have found that the Imperial Valley has had intermittent swarms. Don't know if they're article worthy, but just saying that there's lots of events that could be considered if it were easier or more appealing. I know nothing of modifying infoboxes so we'd have to ping someone in that area for some help. I actually don't even know who made our infobox. Dawnseeker2000 01:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you care if I created Category:Intraplate earthquakes? Thanks. Dustin (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

We might not ever have a need for that kind of categorization. The reason I say that is that I think we already have problems with the wrong categories being applied (Category:Megathrust earthquakes). That one alone will take some time to clean up. A similar issue would exist with interplate vs intraplate. What if it's a "plate marginal" event? Plate boundaries are much broader than they were once considered. In my way of thinking, I imagine the maintenance aspect of that kind of thing. Don't let me stop you though, those are just my thoughts. There was a proposal for, and you may have seen this, a structured category system for eq magnitude. What went through my mind at the time was an amplification of the back and forth editing that we have now (especially after the Nepal EQ) with editors blindly modifying the figures with no source and no edit summary. Total chaos. But again, that's my (pessimistic) view what might happen and the extra cleanup work that might result from it. I could very well be wrong. Dawnseeker2000 22:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Bring it up at the talk page on WP Earthquakes for some other opinions :) Dawnseeker2000 23:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Re Many thanks[edit]

Hello DAWNSEEKER2000. Not a problem in doing the work for this great site. I enjoy doing the articles. I saw that previously there was a big gap in the years from 2005 backwards so my aim is to get caught up. I will work hard over the coming weeks to get as much progress done as possible. I have been following earthquakes for a good number of years now and think they are a fascinating natural phenomenon. In Scotland we dont get very many and I certainly dont recall ever feeling anything. Obviously in light of the recent tragic events in Nepal they can create great destruction and death. Unfortunately that is nature and it was here long before us. Thanks for getting in touch and take care. Matt EK 87 21:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"all of our earthquake articles follow this style"[edit]

Why is that? Was there a Wikipedia community discussion resulting in a consensus that the site-wide guideline doesn't apply to earthquake articles? Also, why did you undo the rest of my copyediting as well? —David Levy 01:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to restore the remainder of your edit. Dawnseeker2000 01:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Please answer my first two questions. —David Levy 01:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, the event is being called the 2015 Nepal earthquake, so we bold it, just like the ~800 other earthquake articles that we have. Dawnseeker2000 01:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you read the guideline and the related essay? "2015 Nepal earthquake" is a sensible description, just as Amish school shooting and April 2014 Abuja bombing are sensible descriptions of the respective articles' subjects. A description isn't the same as a formal or widely accepted designation.
Google News is showing 90 times more hits for "earthquake in Nepal" than for "2015 Nepal earthquake". Does that mean that we should add "earthquake in Nepal" (and every other descriptive phrase we find among reliable sources) to the lead?
Your citation of the other ~800 earthquake articles is an "other stuff exists" argument. (Maybe someone used the same justification when we had 50, 100 or 200 earthquake articles.)
Perhaps many of those articles' leads are formatted incorrectly. Or do you assert that literally every earthquake with an article in the English Wikipedia has one or more widely accepted names (as opposed to descriptions)? I don't doubt that some do, but all of them?
Until recently, several thousand articles about bird species contained title-case formatting of their subjects' common names throughout (page title, bolded mention in lead, and all other instances). For example, instead of "blue jay", was had "Blue Jay". Obviously, this didn't constitute a binding precedent (because that isn't how Wikipedia works). Certainly, the changeover required a great deal of time and effort. Modifying the leads of several hundred earthquake articles would be a far less daunting task. —David Levy 02:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I think we have a handful of articles that aren't bolded because they're not major events and aren't covered by the media or by scientists (and no title given). For the most part, our articles are about large to great earthquakes that have been reported by the media and seismologists. That makes it easy for us to follow the name that's given. The same is going to be the case here, though we'll need to wait months to years for the scientists to publish their work. The boldtitle statement says to bold the accepted name and that's what we're doing. Dawnseeker2000 02:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Unquestionably, numerous reliable sources have used the phrase "2015 Nepal earthquake". But as noted above, the same is true of other descriptive phrases. How has it been determined that this one is the accepted name? Realistically, how can such a thing even exist so soon? —David Levy 02:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It's reasonable to use this name for now. We need to wait for the journal articles, at which time the article could go through a rewrite. It's expected that the seismologists will either use this name or one that reflects the nearest geological feature. Dawnseeker2000 02:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
If "2015 Nepal earthquake" is not yet the accepted name (and might not become the accepted name in the future), why is it appropriate to present it as such? Why not simply wait for the seismologists to settle on an actual name and then add it to the lead? In the meantime, what's the benefit of including a placeholder (which misleads readers and does nothing to enhance their understanding of the article's subject)?
How is that consistent with the aforementioned guideline? (To be clear, I regard "because the policy/guideline says so" as one of the weakest arguments that a Wikipedia editor can make. I'm citing the guideline not to claim that we must follow it for the sake of following it, but to convey the underlying reasons for its existence.) —David Levy 03:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know where you're going with this. It's fine. Have a great night. Dawnseeker2000 03:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You don't understand my concerns, so you're curtly dismissing them? —David Levy 03:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to relax right now, and this isn't helping. Yes, I'm dismissing your concern. Goodnight, Dawnseeker2000 03:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Understood. Good night. —David Levy 03:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

1992 Landers Quake edits[edit]


I just edited and the edit has been moved, I assume for asthertic, layout consistency reasons.

When using the Wikipedia app most pages a have a beautiful representative image as a banner.(Note web users do not see this banner.)

For example the Big Bear Quake has the shakemap as the banner image:

The Landers Quake also has a banner but instead of a topic-relevant shakemap it has a map of California that doesnt even show the epicenter location. (Once again, this is not about the web page layout)

I wanted to make the banner image be the relevant image, not something that appears to be unrelated.

Please let me know if this issue should be brought up as a wikipedia app "bug" that the only way to create the banner is to violate some other best practice.


Ollie — Preceding unsigned comment added by OllieG-wiki (talkcontribs) 04:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


I see You have corrected several spelling-misstakes in the Sweden article - I'm very greatful for Your help. Thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Bolt[edit]

Thank you for merging the two articles on Bruce A. Bolt. Unfortunately, in doing so, you dropped the middle initial from his name. Bolt consistently used his middle initial "A." in his publications, it is in the name of the medal named in his honor, etc. Other sources refer to his full middle name.

A person's name is important. When merging two articles, the survivor should be the one with the more appropriate name (title) under Wikipedia's name guidelines, not which one was first. Because you did that, I now have to persuade an administrator to move the article back just to restore his initial.

How did you go about merging the content? Did you retain all the valid content and sources from both articles? Or, did you just make the Bruce A. Bolt article a redirect to Bruce Bolt.—Finell 05:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You can look at the history of both articles to look at what they were beforehand. I think the merge went OK. Both articles were not too large at the time, and I think I retained the best of both. I don't think this should be an issue. Just use the process at WP:RM and we should be good. Dawnseeker2000 05:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


Bästa nyskrivna.svg 100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 313 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

Bästa nyskrivna.svg This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

. Buster Seven Talk 15:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami[edit]

I'll spare you the standard template, but it sure looks from here like you're engaged in an edit war. Dwpaul Talk 02:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the reminder. Dawnseeker2000 03:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1979 Coyote Lake earthquake[edit]

The article 1979 Coyote Lake earthquake you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:1979 Coyote Lake earthquake for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi Dawnseeker2000, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and have a great day, Dawnseeker2000 20:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Bantul earthquake[edit]

I took quite a strong interest in this in my early days as wp editor as I did my post grad fieldwork ( a few years before) at a place that more or less got destroyed by it - the 'Yogyakarta' thing is a constant problem on wp en- the range of ways that international or non local reporting and web sites that interplay Indonesia/Java/Yogyakarta to the point of severe annoyance is under-statement - then when Bantul enters, most geographically challenged need larger reference points - Indonesia, then Java, then central java etc. Keep up with the earthquake editing - it looks great - User:JarrahTree 01:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope to finish the article this year. I bought a book from Amazon that has a number of papers included, so I have plenty of sources for it, but just ran out of energy with all the writing. It's been bugging me that it's incomplete, and ideally I'd like to have it finished sometime this summer, with recognized content in mind. Dawnseeker2000 01:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Warnings of 2602:30A:C07E:24B0:1C2A:D6D3:E15:8C8E[edit]

That IP did not make any edits between your first and second warnings, so why did you post two warnings? I'm not trying to be bothersome or anything, but I just thought I should ask. Thank you. Dustin (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

They made five vandalistic edits. I warned them twice. That's a fairly good deal for them, I think. Most admins will not block without numerous warnings so I usually leave plenty for them. I do it this way because an administrator advised me to. Dawnseeker2000 16:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for your response. Dustin (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

1979 Bali earthquake[edit]

Hello, I was just wondering why there's a difference between the NGDC and ShakeMap magnitude measurements for the earthquake. The former gives an Ms of 6.5 but the latter gives a M (maybe Mw?) of 6.3. --Inoffensive dinosaw (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There are always going to be a large variety of values for magnitude, coordinates, and intensity (especially for well-studied events). Just imagine all the scientists around the world that are using different equipment and different techniques. Each person's work is going to result in slightly different figures. Also, it would be preferable to use moment magnitude where possible across our articles for consistency. Dawnseeker2000 21:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

North Solomon Islands[edit]

The categories refer to (1) the 1885 creation of a German protectorate (which you kept); (2) the 1893 creation of a British protectorate on the other part of the islands; and (3/4) the 1900 treaty changing the area from the German New Guinea to the British Solomon Islands protectorates. If you wanted to keep something, the 1568 "discovery" by the Spanish makes more sense that the German creation of a protectorate while ignoring the British creation and the treaty itself. We can move this to the article talk page if you prefer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cameron Diaz 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:
  • {{cite web|title=Cameron Diaz Biography|work=''[[]]''|last=Mimon|first=Diana|publisher=[[The New York Times Company] |url=|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


I'm not planning on undoing your change or anything, but why exactly is the word "massive" not encyclopedic? Dustin (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Dustin, I don't feel like it's necessary to respond to this question. Dawnseeker2000 17:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand words like "big", but at least in this context, your words hold no value if you do not explain them! I myself would not use the word "massive" because it can be associated with mass, but that is not a reason for it to be called unencyclopedic. Dustin (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I read a lot of literature about earthquakes and scientists do not use those kinds of terms when describing them. Neither should we. Using a word like "massive" seems a bit juvenile and uninformed. If we're to use a set of words to describe shocks there are a set of words that are used for the different ranges:

  • 5.0–5.9 Moderate
  • 6.0–6.9 Large
  • 7.0–7.9 Very Large
  • ≥8.0 Great

Dawnseeker2000 17:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Coming late to this debate, the term "giant earthquake" does get used for Mw9+. See this paper page 353. Other scientists use it to mean close to M9, including earthquakes like the 2010 Maule event in Chile (M8.8). However, a Google Scholar search shows quite a lot of usage for the M9+ meaning, so I think that you can add that to the upper part of the range. Mikenorton (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Roger that. I've seen it used as well, recently even, probably on the 2004 Sumatra–Andaman earthquake. Thanks for pointing that out. This came up because I just want to avoid us using terms you might hear/read in the media. In general, I really want to avoid overstating the effects of earthquakes. On a side note, I saw Chris Goldfinger's talk here in Portland in February, but missed Thorne Lay's presentation while he was in town a couple of weeks ago. Dagnabit, saw the video on YouTube though. Dawnseeker2000 20:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Here's another take on the naming, going from Moderate as you have it above, then Strong for 6-6.9 and Major for 7-7.9, I've certainly heard that being used, but it's tough to find anything definitive. However, they're all good descriptive terms that we can use. Mikenorton (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Definitely on board with those standard descriptions (that have the right tone). Thanks for the link, Dawnseeker2000 05:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for a 3rd opinion[edit]

Hi! Since you are (or have been) one of the main contributors/maintainers of the Abba article, I'd like to request your opinion on a dispute about the proper handling of sales figures in the article's lead.

The dispute is at Talk:ABBA#Sales and your input would be very much appreciated. --Kmhkmh (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalizing Wikipedia:User pages[edit]

I didn't (or, at the very least, not intentionally). Also, as you can see, I reverted them immediately. You should have seen that, coming here twenty minutes after I reverted them. My short and incomplete explanation was that it was an accident after a silly test which I didn't intend to publish, but if you'd like to know more, I can explain further. (By the way, I requested for my user page to be deleted after I had done the very same thing to it, because I would have preferred if it didn't show up in the edit history). Regardless, I apologize for the inconvenience. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop talking like that around here. Dawnseeker2000 00:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean? Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Earthquakes in the Levant[edit]

Hi, Dawnseeker2000. Two quick questions: Would you put the 847 Damascus earthquake in the Classic era or the Middle ages; and what is the cut-off date between the two? Reasons for asking: I wrote the article a while back as the 847 Antioch earthquake, when {{Earthquakes in Turkey}} had lots of redlinks (all blue now :) , and mikenorton moved it to its current name per the talk. I recently noticed that it now has a {{Earthquakes in the Levant}} template, in which the 847 event isn't included. So... where should it go? A number of articles tend to point towards the 5th-6th centuries as the start of the post-classical age, so does the 749 Galilee earthquake also belong in the Middle ages? :>MinorProphet (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi MinorProphet, that is a good question. Those are really old events. Any uncertainty that I've had usually revolves around the geographical scope of the Levant, and whether to include an earthquake based on its location. I'm not all that up to speed on those old periods, but Greyshark09 set them up on the template. Maybe they'd be a good place to ask? Good luck, Dawnseeker2000 14:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)