User talk:Mikenorton/Archive 6
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- 1 Colloidal silver
- 2 How Can I Become A Participant?
- 3 WikiProject Earthquakes
- 4 Mystery mineral
- 5 Awesome
- 6 thanks
- 7 Quick Edit Thanks
- 8 Old boy (2)
- 9 Next year
- 10 Disambiguation link notification for January 22
- 11 Qeshm
- 12 Main page appearance: 2005 Qeshm earthquake
- 13 As a little token of my thanks...
- 14 Sandfall/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandfall
- 15 Earthquake prediction (again)
- 16 WP Earthquakes in the Signpost
- 17 Bangui Magnetic Anomaly
- 18 DYK for Bangui Magnetic Anomaly
- 19 DYK for World Digital Magnetic Anomaly Map
- 20 Location map Italy North relief
- 21 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake
- 22 China clay extraction in Cornwall; copper extraction & copperware
- 23 Baikal Rift Zone
- 24 subjectiveness of Mercalli scale
- 25 Help at Wikidata
- 26 Disambiguation link notification for June 7
- 27 File:Slickensides.gif listed for deletion
- 28 File:Subduction01.jpg missing description details
- 29 Time of the 1920 Haiyuan earthquake
- 30 July 2013
- 31 Disambiguation link notification for July 9
- 32 Precious again
- 33 Something interesting
- 34 Skype
- 35 Request
- 36 9.6 chile 1960 EQ
- 37 Flash Player Firefox 64-bit offline installer link.
- 38 Oil shale and bituminous shale
- 39 Shetland complex
- 40 Naming of historical Japanese earthquakes
- 41 Disambiguation link notification for November 8
- 42 Changing links to redirects to piped links
- 43 Disambiguation link notification for February 6
- 44 Disambiguation link notification for February 23
- 45 Antonio Vivaldi
- 46 Earthquakes in fracking
- 47 Hydraulic fracturing
- 48 Oil shale in Estonia
- 49 Change the name of an article, please
- 50 Precious again
- 51 Earthquake Prediction
- 52 Thank you for your suggestion on my Tectonics of South China Sea page
- 53 Disambiguation link notification for December 14
- 54 Images for Groups
- 55 Disambiguation link notification for December 21
- 56 Disambiguation link notification for December 28
- 57 Questions about deleted figures
- 58 Happy New Year!
- 59 Volcanology
- 60 Disambiguation link notification for January 11
- 61 Quartzite
- 62 Disambiguation link notification for March 3
- 63 March 2015
- 64 1805 Molise Earthquake
- 65 Disambiguation link notification for March 30
- 66 Disambiguation link notification for April 6
- 67 Apologies
- 68 about earthquake prediction
- 69 Fowler–Yang equations
- 70 Looking for a salt tectonic reference
- 71 Belated barnstar
- 72 Work for the Coal Industry?
- 73 Thank you for your geological contributions
- 74 Invitation to comment
- 75 Source for Hitchcock 1823?
- 76 The 2015 South Asia earthquake 26 October 2015
- 77 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 78 Coal
- 79 About the article earth
- 80 Sindri Fort
- 81 DYK for Makrana marble
- 82 Revert on 2016 Taiwan earthquake
- 83 Earthquake sensitive
- 84 Reference errors on 4 March
- 85 Basin Modelling Software in Basin Modelling page
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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've been out a lot, so only just got to this - I found this source , 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)
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)
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.
- I agree. So glad I gave you the leadership. Thanks so much for all you do! ceranthor 20:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
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.
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 to you both. Ben MacDui 09:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Good news, thanks Ceranthor. Mikenorton (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- We did it! ceranthor 01:54, 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...)
As a little token of my thanks...
|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)
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)
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)
- 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
|On 18 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bangui Magnetic Anomaly, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that most of the Central African Republic is covered by the Bangui Magnetic Anomaly (pictured as large red anomaly in central Africa), the result of an igneous intrusion or meteorite impact? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bangui Magnetic Anomaly. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
DYK for World Digital Magnetic Anomaly Map
|On 25 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article World Digital Magnetic Anomaly Map, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the World Digital Magnetic Anomaly Map depicts features such as the Richat Structure, Atlantic ridge, Paris Basin and Chicxulub crater (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/World Digital Magnetic Anomaly Map. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
Location map Italy North relief
- ... reply on my talk page. Michael! (talk) 18:07, 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
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
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.
- 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 . 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 , , , . 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)
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.
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
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
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]]]
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.
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? --18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:36, 12 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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.
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 (talk • contribs) 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)
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)
Change the name of an article, please
Hi Mike You merged the "Karoo System" and "Karoo Supergroup" articles a while ago. I therefore presume you are authorized to rename articles with a geological flavor.
The article on "Table Mountain" in South Africa, is named just that. But all the links to "Table Mountain", and the Wiki search engine, take you to "Table Mountain (disambiguous)" from which you then have to pick the Table Mountain you want to read about. There is no direct way to get to "Table Mountain" in South Africa.
Hi Mike, Still on the same subject: Would it be possible (and advisable) to redirect all upper/lower case variations on "Table Mountain" (table mountain, Table mountain, table Mountain, table mounTain, etc.) initially to the "Table Mountain" page, please? This would be in the spirit of Wiki policy. When searching for a page, I (for one) am generally not overly careful (nor do I always know in advance) about which words need to start with capital letters - I suspect that I am not unique in this respect. If the person lands on the "Table Mountain" page they do not want, then there is an immediate option to go to the "Disambiguation" page to find the right table mountain they are looking for. Oggmus (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion on my Tectonics of South China Sea page
Hi Mike, I saw your talk on my page. Thank you very much for your suggestion. That is a good point to my page. I am contacting those publishers to request the permission for using those figures.
- I wouldn't hold out much hope - redrawing them with modifications is always a better solution. I'll hold off for now, but they will likely be deleted. Mikenorton (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ravenscar Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ravenscar. 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.
Images for Groups
- You're very welcome - it's a good challenge in some cases - there's a few that are so poorly exposed that I can't find any images at all. Having all geograph images as a layer in google earth makes it a bit easier, combined with the online BGS geological map - hopefully they're all correctly attributed. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Corallian Limestone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxfordian. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Causey Pike Fault, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Troutbeck. 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.
Questions about deleted figures
Hello, Mikenorton. I noticed that you recently delete several figures from the page Tectonic of South China Sea which I created. However, I cited these figures from a published book and I redrew all of them after you left me a message last time, for Fig 6 and Fig 8 especially. Would you please tell me why these reworked figures still have problems? Thank you! Chang21liu (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Chang21liu
- Hi Chang21liu, note that I removed the figures rather than deleting them, they can be restored assuming that there is evidence that you have permission to use them. It's generally not enough to just add a bit of colour to an original, although it's often a fine dividing line to ensure that a reworked figure is sufficiently different to be outside copyright restrictions. Any image at Commons that gives someone else as the author without evidence of their permission is liable to be deleted. If you feel that your figures are sufficiently different, then you should change the author to your own name, stating that they are modified after the original author's work. I hope that this helps - we just really need to be careful about copyright. I don't have access to all the original papers, so it's difficult for me to check on how different they are, I'm mainly going on the image descriptions at commons. Mikenorton (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Your Figure 7 is still too similar to Cullen et al's Figure 4 to my mind. The Moho depth Map is a direct copy, with a little additional annotation - that's definitely not OK. For Figure 6 and the Subsidence figure, I don't have originals for comparison - again I was just going on the commons description. There is no Figure 8 in the version that I worked on this morning - what is the actual filename? Mikenorton (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
- Thanks Beagel, I've been trying to get back into regular editing over the last month. You are certainly an inspiration for that! Mikenorton (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Halo Mikenorton. With regard to the discussion about my section, I would reinvite you to have a look on the authors and reviewers, imho no "piece of sociology" but dealing en detail with Volcanology and Volcanologists. I reduced lingo. I have have added some links and papers I would like to use for the draft. Point is, I am not bound to force all of that directly in Volcanology, but assume something like "Volcanic hazards as a global problem" could be an alternative. Suggestions invited. Serten II (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burrington Combe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate. 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.
I see the Prospect Mountain Formation image featured as an exemplar of both the Quartzite and Quartz arenite; this probably could be clarified. You might like the dolomitic calcite cemented "Lincoln 'Quartzite'", of which I think Rock City, Kansas is an example. There is a court case discussing statutory use of the term Quartzite in the case of this sandstone. IveGoneAway (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pebas Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquitanian (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.
- Don't worry - that word is always a red flag - I just hoped that my edit summary would be enough to explain what I was doing. Mikenorton (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
1805 Molise Earthquake
Your pages on major earthquakes are fantastic. Thank you for cross referencing to Mirabello Sannitico. I had an idea: if you added a section with a table format, with affected towns, with two columns of data, number dead and comments, people could come along and drop in the information. It is not well aggregated, but step by step, people with an interest in individual localities could populate it. Stay well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MIademarco (talk • contribs) 01:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind words. The CFTI4MED catalogue page linked to has details of numbers of inhabitants for each town/village affected (under the section 'Demography elements'), so it would be easy to construct such a table, which could also include the Mercalli intensity, which is already in a table further down the same webpage. The death toll could then be added for those which have a source. Maybe this should start as a user draft, until at least some of the empty boxes are filled. Mikenorton (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've just realised that 'Felt Localities' section has a comments column, which if you click on it, it expands to show details for each town, including the number of dead and injured, so all the info is there, it's just a case of putting into the table. So the headings would be - Name - Mercalli intensity - Population - Dead - Injured - Comments. I'll have a go at this over the weekend, if I get the chance. Mikenorton (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2006 Mozambique earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beira (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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nordfjord-Sogn Detachment, 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.
about earthquake prediction
Thank you for your reply on ISambard kingdom talk page about quality starndard. However, I disagree what you said. and delete. Your first time delete because of my mistake, i haven't finish the whole paragraph. as you mentioned nothing related to earthquake. I just mentioned the observation and you edit it while i am still adding the earthquake part. I understand that, i reverted that and said nothing. Your second time delete, i disagree. What is your criteria of sufficient quality of observation?? Now, I gave mine thought about sufficient quality in this case. How many times you see killer whales appear and appear as group in tokyo bay? According to Japan Times (Mainstream Media) it is rare!. but I agree that it is not enough. now. how any times you see 7.8 magnitude earthquake around Japan?? I gave you a link http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/eqstats.php 7-7.9 range 12 time / year / globe . about 8 range, 1-2 times/year/globe . This is a 7.8 Magnitude earth quake. That is why you will see in news even in Japan, a country with many earthquakes. let me remind the rareness again. 1. that statistic is for globe not for japan region only. which makes the region should have way fewer per year in that level. 2. 7-7.9 range is huge. 7.8 is very close to 8 not to 7. And i believe you know in earth quake magnitude classification 7.1-7.2 is way different from 7.6-7.7 . the definition of impact of the class is not equal each level.
Two rare cases happen together in a small region (the north east corner of pacific ocean of the huge earth) in such a short time 4 days? where is the distance between tokyo and center of earthquake? according to the BBC news i listed is 874 KM. what is the speed of killer whale swim? you can google , top speed 48.3KM/Hour ,Average speed 19-20 KM/Hour 874/48.3 = 18 Hours. 874/20 =43.7 Hours. 2 Days!! Now. Not every killer whale swim always "straight" line ( the shortest distance between 2 points). they rest, they eat ,they swim around)
To me, 2 rare cases happen together with reasonable time different. It is a Good observation. before giving any theory support. for 2 reasons . 1. I am not seimologist， but to make an significant example and define possible case is accurate. 2. I don't see any good theory support in the world now to support animal prediction but it exists for centries from every generation from every country.
- Now, please gave me your standard of qualification and how this qualification could help animal prediction item in wiki? You point the problem to this time, you said my "supplement solution" is not good. what is your solution to solve this problem? I always want to gave valid proved case to wiki. but in this case, there isn't exist yet in the world. besides P wave study. If you can't give a better solution to the world in this specific case ( i didn't mean all other wiki contribution you made , which is very amazing), you could gave a more suggestive solution before you delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summitguy (talk • contribs) 17:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I noticed you previously edited the article on Pressure solution. Could you tell me if you think the article Fowler–Yang equations describes a topic that is notable enough for inclusion? Cheers, —Ruud 17:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that it shouldn't be just merged into the pressure solution article, as, although the paper gets plenty of citations, the equations themselves get a lot less. I restored the deleted material from the pressure solution article for now, as I don't see how it was refspam - anyway I started a discussion on the article talk page. Mikenorton (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Looking for a salt tectonic reference
I am working with salt tectonics at the moment and find the figure you uploaded very interesting. I have, however, some problems finding out were this figure originally comes from (I need some type of peer-reviewed publication reference). Is this a figure you published somewhere, or do you know were it originally comes from?
Hoping for help :)
- Hei Kristian, that image really is my own work and not based on any other published diagram I'm afraid. I drew it on the basis of work that I carried out on the development of salt structures (particularly non-piercement ones) in the UK and Norway Central North Sea for a number of clients, mainly derived from detailed isopachs within the Triassic. I remember that I was quite strongly influenced by Max Zirngast's paper on Gorleben, although it didn't cover enough area to really show what I suspected was the full pattern. The Central Graben examples covered a much larger area and the initial pattern of low ridges was clear, as was the selective rise at some of the nodes with the development of anhydrite caps where they reached close enough to the ground surface. Anyway, sorry not to be more helpful, mvh, Mikenorton (talk) 20:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Looking around further I found Kaus & Podladchikov 2001, but that's about it. The unusual thing about the Central North Sea is that salt moves as soon as the Triassic sedimentation starts. This is, I think, because the Smith Bank Shale had an initial density that is higher than salt, so you don't need to wait for further sedimentation and compaction to get the density inversion. Having carried out a lot of section restorations in the area, I know that the Smith Bank is essentially uncompactable. Mikenorton (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hei igjen,
Thanks for your answer. It is easy to find 2D sections of salt tectonics, but not very easy to find map views of the development... If you think it is OK for me to use your figure, how would you like me to reference it (could I include an edited version of what you write above in my figure text as pers. com. f.e.x.)?
I see early salt movement in a different area, thinking that differential compaction would be the explanation for it, but high density shale is an interesting perspective that might work for me too. Thanks for the tip! 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
|The WikiProject Dorset Barnstar|
|I was just looking at the Dorset article and the marvelous map you produced for it, and wondering why on earth I didn't show more appreciation at the time. I can only assume I was preoccupied with the FA thing. Anyway, please accept this belated barnstar and apologies for my tardiness.Ykraps (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)|
Work for the Coal Industry?
If so, please stop shilling and destroying my edits where I try to submit perfectly reasonable, extremely well-known information about the detrimental effects of coal on human health and the environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 17:22, 8 August 2015
- You still haven't read WP:LEAD have you. As it happens I am entirely open about my employment in both the oil/gas and nuclear industries - I haven't worked for the coal industry, nor do I plan to. To reiterate virtually all of your additions to the article are where they should be, in the relevant section, with a summary in the lead section. You are edit warring and need to stop. Mikenorton (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your geological contributions
|The Geology Barnstar|
|Thanks for your extensive geology-related contributions to Wikipedia, including your answers to geological questions at the Reference Desk, creating and improving geology articles particularly on structural geology and earthquakes, and creating and uploading good quality geological images GeoWriter (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)|
- Thanks for that, my writing could be improved however. Mikenorton (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Invitation to comment
Source for Hitchcock 1823?
You recently edited the history section of Paleontology in Connecticut to say that Hitchcock's research on Connecticut paleobotany was published in 1823. My source said 1822. Do you have a better source for this date? Abyssal (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm assuming that it's this paper, which was read in 1822, but published in 1823. Maybe this isn't the research being referred to, in which case I'm happy to see it changed back. Mikenorton (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The 2015 South Asia earthquake 26 October 2015
The recent The 2015 South Asia earthquake, was more than 8.5 as reported by Pakistan Meteorological department, kindly see and then confirm and later add it if it qualifies for it. thanksJogi 007 (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- They give the magnitude as 8.1 , so nowhere near powerful enough to make it onto that list. Other agencies have it as M7.5. Mikenorton (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please discuss this on the talk page as requested - the phraseology used that you reverted back to is plain wrong. If you think that I've been edit warring, then take me to the appropriate noticeboard. Mikenorton (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- @CombatWombat42: He is not the only one. I too have problems with that edit as I have explained on the talkpage of the article. Dr. K. 04:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
About the article earth
Hi I'm Sarthak Sharma. I have edited the article earth but why you have reverted it. Have I done a mistake. Please reply on my talk page page Thank You From Sarthak Sharma --sattu 09:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Sarthakniar (Talk) 05:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)sattu
- The derivation of the word 'Earth' (its etymology) is covered in the section of the article Earth#Name_and_etymology. It is not as simple as your text implies "The word Earth is derived from the word soil.". The lead section should summarise the article, so anything added to it should summarise that particular section, which I don't think that your text did. Mikenorton (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your correction to my edit. Might I however request you to put in a link to the new stub on the fort. Would you be able to find the lat-long for this fort (I am not sure the Wikimapia location suggestion is right)? It would be nice to be able to look up the location of the fort as well as that of Allah Bund on Google Earth. I am impressed by your qualification and seeing that you have a to-do list, might I suggest a couple of articles that are currently quite badly written and seem to be right up your alley - isostasy (Airy and Pratt models), Bouguer anomaly - which I am interested in via the John Henry Pratt biography which is also quite poor. Shyamal (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Shyamal, I've already linked to the fort article in the tsunami section. As to the lat long - File:Sindh and Kutch 1827 map.jpg shows a Sindree, which looks to be in the right position relative to the bund, based on this image from the Geological Survey of India, I don't know if that helps. Mikenorton (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Makrana marble
|On 29 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Makrana marble, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Makrana marble was used in the construction of the Taj Mahal and the Victoria Memorial? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Makrana marble. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.|
Revert on 2016 Taiwan earthquake
Talking about your revert for my edit, the first thing is: Wikinews is not Wikipedia and so, it does not contain encyclopedic stuff. Further, you are not supposed to remove it. It is supported by Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects and so, I am reverting you back.
Agastya Chandrakant (talk) 08:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- To quote the page that you linked to "encourages links from Wikipedia articles to pages on sister projects when such links are likely to be useful to our readers" - how is this link of use to a reader of the article? Mikenorton (talk) 08:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I hope you're not offended if I say that I'm still unconvinced as to the need for an article on this topic. Your draft is forced to tread the difficult ground of any pseudoscience article, by first putting up the 'theory' and then knocking it down. In particular your sentence "Although proponents suggest the possibility that the claimed effects might work through known physical phenomena, and thus be amenable to scientific study, these claims are pseudoscientific in that no evidence of such effects, nor any theory of how such effects might be perceived, has been presented in the scientific literature." needs to be properly sourced, or it risk coming over as synthesis. I've no doubt that you're right, but it will be challenged. Sorry not to be more positive. Mikenorton (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're not offensive, so I am not offended. You're right in that that sentence (and another one) are weak. I could probably find more solid sourcing. But considering how awful the original article was in its uncritical acceptance of this nonsense, and how long it stood unchallenged, it would be quite hypocritical (literally) to complain about this version. Of course, that will hardly slow down any of the usual yahoos, so when (if??) they show up the question may be whether the article must be perfect to their satisfaction, or we get a consensus that it is good enough.
- As to any need: I believe there was some mention at the AfD that the term is notable enough on the popular media to be treated. And I would argue that we have MANY articles on less notable, even trivial, topics, including (in the category Category:Prediction) Ray Hammond and Anthony Carr (psychic). And of course, Jim Berkland. His only claim to notability is his predictions, so if this article goes then that article should go as well. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Reference errors on 4 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Basin Modelling Software in Basin Modelling page
Hello there Mikenorton,
I recently add to the section "Basin modelling software in: Basin modelling page", a new system for Multi-1D Basin Modelling called TRACE, and now the list is empty and all softwares are gone. Sorry for the inconvenience and I ask if it's possible to restore it, because considering the subject in the page, software packages are an essential part of the information. Please contact me if you want to know more: email@example.com.
- Hi DBCosta, you need to read the page on external links WP:EL, specifically where it says under 'Links normally to be avoided' "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". It's fine to link to a wikipedia page on a particular software package, but not to just link to the software provider's webpage as that is considered promotional. Mikenorton (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- See for example here - Geologic_modelling#Geologic_modelling_software. Mikenorton (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)