User talk:Stormchaser89

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

BIUF ALC[edit]

Hey, Tongariro is currently erupting, the USGS (Smithsonian) confirmed it this week. Please correct the edition. Thanks!

Disambiguation link notification for July 26[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


Alessia did not dissipate. TCWC Perth is still monitoring the storm, so we can't assume that the storm has dissipated until it has been completely dropped from the bulletins. See this tropical weather outlook. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source for last eruption dates[edit]

I notice that you are altering the "last eruption" dates on many mountain infoboxes. Could you kindly supply reliable sources for these changes, with inline citations? Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, please do otherwise they are subject to being reverted. Thanks. RedWolf (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mount Moffett 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:
  • {{mountain

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 4 December[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) 00:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz[edit]

Hello, I saw that you added what appears to be an ending date, while leaving "(ongoing)" to Nevado del Ruiz. It seems to me that it either ended and "(ongoing)" should be removed or there should be no ending date. Also, what is your source for this information? I ask because the article doesn't mention any activity after January 2013. Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 01:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This format was not invented by me, the "December 2014 to January 2015" indicates how long the most recent eruption has lasted and the ongoing means it is or is possibly continuing. I get my information from the Global Volcanism Program's weekly reports and eruptive history. The eruption may be over since there hasn't been any information on it since Janaury, but the Global Volcanism Program still suggests it may be still ongoing in the volcano's eruptive history. Stormchaser89 talk 09:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Megathrust earthquakes[edit]

Please stop blindly adding this category to articles. Thank you, Dawnseeker2000 02:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This quake was a megathrust earthquake event as it occurred on the Java Trench which is a subduction zone, this same fault produced the 1994 Java earthquake. Because of this it is considered a megathrust earthquake event and belongs in the Category:Megathrust earthquakes in Java.User:Stormchaser89 02:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I'd like to say that I've been cleaning up after you (and will be) for some time. You've added this category without any consideration of what scientists are saying. So, I have two questions for you. What is your source? Have you read the article? Please do not continue to add that category to articles without consulting reliable sources. Thanks again, Dawnseeker2000 02:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I have to ask you the same question on if you've even read this article, it says in the intro it was a subduction zone quake on the Java Trench, and I know from other sources including the USGS that this was considered a megathrust earthquake, maybe you need to look into things before automatically undoing edits. User:Stormchaser89 03:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Megathrust, continued[edit]

Well of course I read it. Look, we need to be careful what we say. What I mean by that is that we only say what reliable sources say, right? I think we're in agreement on that. And yes, the article does say that the event occurred on the Java segment of the Sunda Trench. OK great.

Now let's pause for a moment. Let's look at what our own article on megathrust earthquakes says:

The term megathrust does not have a widely accepted rigorous definition, but is used to refer to an extremely large thrust fault, typically formed at the plate interface along a subduction zone such as the Sunda megathrust

OK, extremely large. The Sunda Megathrust certainly is that, right? But what about the size of the event itself? 7.7 Mw. This is not a great (or "mega") earthquake. It's classified as a "very large" earthquake. Now let's compare that with what the source in the article says: (Irsyam et al. 2008)

The record of historic seismicity along the Java segment indicates that within a period of about 300 years, no great interplate (megathrust) earthquakes have occurred that were similar to the 1833 and 1861 Sumatra events.

So they're saying no megathrust earthquake has occurred on the Java portion of the Sunda Trench in the last 300 years. They're saying this because there have been no great thrust earthquakes there. Great earthquakes are over M8. The Pangandaran event a touch smaller than that. If we have the megathrust category in the article we'd be contradicting ourselves. I don't want Wikipedia editors to appear foolish, so we categorize the article by what its sources say, and I think we should apply the same standards across all our earthquake articles. We should not categorize any earthquake as great or "mega" if it is not over M8. Sorry for the quick reverts (I agree they're not a nice thing) but I work hard at making these articles agree with their sources. Dawnseeker2000 03:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Well in that case with the 8 or higher definition a lot of articles that are currently under the Category:Megathrust earthquakes will need to be removed then; note many articles with 7-7.9 quakes were already included before I even started adding additional ones, which is why I considered 7.0 or greater as megathrust. Surprisingly someone put an article in that was a quake of less than 7 which would make me uncategorize it from the megathrust category. Perhaps a statement on the main category stating the definition should be included? User:Stormchaser89 03:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure that it's necessary to create a definition. Not a bad idea of course, and feel free to do that, but my approach for the last couple of years has been to just compare with what is written about these events with what our articles and categories are saying. I know not everyone has access to high quality sources, but I spend a good amount of time collecting journal articles and books from wherever I can, and it's satisfying to apply what I read and learn to our articles. For now my plan is to maintain course with what I've been doing and clarify and expand on things when I find room for improvement. Only ~800 earthquake articles; just a few weekend's worth of work, right? Dawnseeker2000 03:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well its not difficult to go through and weed out the ones that are less than 8, I can easily do that and put a definition in. I've seen some categories with definitions previously, and they are meant to clarify what should and should not be included. Good luck on the ~800 earthquakes. User:Stormchaser89 04:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10[edit]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)