Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Mikenorton is suffering from health issues. This may affect his ability to work on Wikipedia. Consequently, he may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

Please tell me where I can send you message — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrishseo (talk • contribs) 08:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you so much for your help at Mary Kessell. I left last night with the intention of making additional corrections today and was pleasantly surprised to see it in the queue (thanks to your work). Much appreciated. All the best, France3470 (talk)

Hi, thanks for fixing my accidental mistake on removing the Category:Megathrust earthquakes from the Megathrust earthquake article, I was actually intending to do that for another article that didn't belong in the category and accidentally did so for the article. My mistake. Stormchaser89 (talk) 011:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC

Don't get involved in the Galileo articles.

Hi Mikenorton, I didn't add the Brazilian Margin to the list I think I just reformatted the list when I added other entries. I think you are right that it would be more correct to just classify the south part of this margin as volcanic i.e. from where the SDRs are visible (South of -20Deg)? The paper 'South Atlantic volcanic margins' Gladczenko et al., (1997) in the Geological Society of London Journal has a good map on Figure 1. If you don't have access to this paper I can send you a copy. Alewisp14 (talk)

Regarding the symbol M used for earthquake Magnitude: do we have any notions of best practice on how it should be formatted? (E.g., italic or straight, spaced or closed-up, ??) Might there be any interest in having a template to handle the details? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike Norton -- I just wondered what you thought of the recent edits to Mesozoic: this and the one right before it. I don't think "ca." is needed for such large numbers, do you? Also, the use of "prelude" as a verb is quite unusual:

• preludes to the lush Jurassic Period.

Does that sound right to you?  – Corinne (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Corinne, I've removed the "ca."s but added "roughly" or "about' as the numbers that divide the subdivisions are not as precise as quoted by the ICS. I also changed "preludes" to "precedes" and removed the older "lush" bit. Those edits overall improved things I think. Mikenorton (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better now. Thanks. I'm wondering whether "roughly" shouldn't be right before the first number in the ranges. If it is a synonym of "about", or "approximately", and you've put "about" right before the first number in another range, then shouldn't it be in the same place? "Ranges roughly from X to Y" or "ranges from roughly X to Y"? I'm on the fence, but I think the second one sounds more colloquial.  – Corinne (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have some information about speleologists who investigated Kruber Cave in 60s. You see, the thing is that 'Krubera' wrong name. Is correctly Kruber Cave (see Alexander Kruber). Krubera Cave is Russian form (see Пещера Крубера [Peshera (cave) krubera) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.240.206.224 (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should raise this at the article talk page - Talk:Krubera Cave. I do note however, that most of the english language sources use the spelling currently used in the article name. We can only go by the sources. Mikenorton (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dent Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coniston. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metamorphic processes involed in peridotite formation are

• partial melting
• phase transitions (garnet to spinel, spinel to plagioclase)
• high temperature deformation (very important!These rocks have metamorphic texture). Pioneering work is done by Nicolas, French professor in late 70tie,s I think, I will add reference later.
• and many others I can think later

These methamorphic processes occur in earth mantle. The most peridotite exposed on Earth surface are of the mantle origin.^[1]

The rocks of earth’s mantle which are metamorphosed have been igneous rocks form by other igneous processes, from magma oceans in early earth history. I will try to expand the peridotite wiki in this respect if I have enough time. It is kind of priority, although I have other priorities... Obradow (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks Obradow, I understand now - I have a copy of Nicolas and Poirier (Crystalline plasticity and solid state flow in metamorphic rocks) on my bookshelf. The problem as I see it with calling it a metamorphic rock is that in most cases the peridotites that we see at the surface are from the mantle lithosphere. Although they are clearly deformed, tectonites I would call them, they don't have a changed mineralogy. Some would call them metamorphic, but I'm not so sure, although they can clearly be metamorphosed, that still makes them a metamorphosed igneous rock, rather than primarily a metamorphic rock. If you have a good source that describes them as metamorphic, then fair enough. Mikenorton (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey THANK you Mikenorton for asking interesting question! Lets do following. Lets find the definition of metamorphic rocks. Wiki has to offer : Metamorphic rocks arise from the transformation of existing rock types, in a process called metamorphism, which means "change in form". ^[2]

Textbook example ^[3] states that any methamorphism includs all changes that affect rocks as resalt of chnages in pressure, temerature or composition of fluids in rock. It is then further stated that this occurs in sedimentary, igneous and even former metamorphic rocks. So strictly speaking mantle peridotites are mehamorphic rocks. There must be textbooks with even more clear definition.

Well the upper mantle peridoties are clearly special. Maybe they should be new division of rocks of rocks on planet earth : Earth's Core rocks, Earth's Mantle rocks, and Earth's crust rocks. (: Then peridotites would be even more important (: Their origin is unique in the sense that mantle was formed in earth early history (please somebody help, I know I read that somewhere), Earth was liquid at one point (please somebody expand this), after separation of core, earth mantle than crystallised, after that, it did changed it composition, texture by mehamorphic melting processes, this is how oceanic and partly continental crust is formed. If I get time I would like to learn about this and write what I learned. Just as teaser you can think about mantle peridotites as some previous peridotite which lost melt to create earth's crust.Obradow (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted User:Obradow's edit in the Peridotite article about peridotite being a metamorphic rock. I've explained why, and offered an invitation for comment, at Talk:Peridotite#Igneous or metamorphic rock. GeoWriter (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good plan, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Worcester Basin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aeolian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the 2014 Eketahuna earthquake page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tahora Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gisborne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can help me about the categories...

I inherited of the Primary School project, which aims at improving a selection of articles considered relevant to Primary Education. As part of this project, I need to follow up do quality assessment, hence my adding the WikiProject to the talk pages of those articles (slightly over 200).

But the WikiProject Primary School was declared as a sub-project of South Africa WikiProject... so the problem I have is that I want to actually put the Primary School Project in the talk page to follow up quality, but not really the South Africa WikiProject. But I have no idea how to do it. I tried to find solution to only display one but not the other, but I could not find out how to do it. Practically, I do not even really care if the PP Projects is visible on the talk page. I only need to tag the pages so I can follow them for the quality assessement.

Do you have any idea how to do that ? Can you help or suggest directions ?

My alternative is to entirely remove the Primary School Project from the South Africa fatherhood... but am not sure if that is ok to do that and will obviously takes me a huge amount of time to fix everything. Any idea ?

Anthere (talk)

My apologies first of all for messing up my edit summary - when I referred to categories I meant WikiProjects (WPs) - that's what I get for trying to fit in a quick edit during my my lunch hour. To add a WP to an article it really needs to belong there, or we can end up with tens to hundreds for an article which would not be appropriate. I'm afraid that I don't know much about sub-projects, just the two that I'm involved in, WP Geology and WP Earthquakes, which don't, as far as I'm aware have, have subprojects. A good place to ask might be at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, but I see that you already know about that. Mikenorton (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bunch of material to cover, but it would be appreciated if you could go over it and comment at Talk:Earthquake_prediction#RfC re neutrality/POV issues. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JJ, I've already spent hours looking at "natural time" references and failed to come to any definite conclusions other than we're a little early in the history of the approach to be sure about anything. I will try to come up with something at the Rfc. Mikenorton (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, it is rather mind-boggling. (Don't get sucked down the drain!!) Even though I am not competent with large swaths of physics and mathematical analysis, yet I feel that my own failed attempts to grapple with any substance in those articles is less a reflection on my competence (or lack of) than on a lack of substance to grapple. That kind of stuff seems to be a counter-demonstration of the old saying that "you can't shine s**t". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four years ago ...

knowledge of earthquakes
... you were recipient no. 177 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Gerda. Mikenorton (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Six years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to justify this Gerda, but thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's for life, relax, seven years ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yet again Gerda. Mikenorton (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and eight --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, The article Kaolin Deposits of Charentes Basin, France has been tagged for various problems and would benefit from a geologist's attention. Please have a look if you have time.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've begun to take a look, but not sure how much time I can spend on it. I see that the original creator of the article is probably M.Koneshloo, who wrote the paper (with J-P Chiles) in the 'Further Reading' section - whole sections are verbatim and I'm not quite sure how to handle that. Mikenorton (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; it is outside my range of knowledge but it turned up when I was categorizing a Commons image of Wenford Dries. I will look at it again tomorrow as the Conflict of interest issue is more important than the problems identified already.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article and added a notice about possible copyright violation so I think there is no need for further action except by an editor who has experience in dealing with that issue.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thanet Formation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cobble and Herne Bay. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike - you tweaked this unit where mentioned in the Geology of Lancashire article that I've been editing (rather bit by bit!). I'd thought to include the former name (introduced as 'older texts') so as to explain the occurrence in literature of the name in different forms - did I get it wrong? cheers Geopersona (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No not at all, I've adjusted it to link to the earlier mention of the unit and restored the 'Group'. More haste, less speed as they say. I noticed that the Bowland Shale Formation link in your new Trawden Limestone Group article was red, and thought that I should make a start on that one, seeing as there's so much interest in its potential exploitation for Shale Gas. I should be able to expand it over the next few days. Mikenorton (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And yes, it would be good to see that expansion to cater to the present interest. Best wishes Geopersona (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikenorton. You have new messages at Talk:Hydraulic fracturing.
Message added 18:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hi, out of curiosity, I went to dig deeper into how the magnitudes are computed, and in particular which stations are used. You can find the complete data from the two agencies in XML format: INGV and USGS, and here you can find the meanings of the networkCode attribute of each station's measurement. With a couple of grep, sed and uniq on linux command line, it seems indeed that USGS only used a subset of the Italian stations and based most of its findings on US and Canada based stations. Also, it is not clear to me how the two agencies computed the error on their estimates. USGS quotes errors more than an order of magnitude smaller than INGV, which, as a physicist, sounds a bit fishy. I thought I would share these few observations with you.--Japs 88 (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The USGS uses several different ways of calculating magnitude, even within moment magnitude - they quote Mwb, Mww, Mwp, Mwc, Mwr and so on. The magnitude that they quote for the Italian earthquake is a Mwp (for an explanation of what all these version of Mw are see here). I imagine that the quoted error is just the error inherent in that particular methodology, rather than the uncertainty regarding the actual total energy release of the earthquake, which is the intent of the moment magnitude scale. The bigger the earthquake, the less it matters that you have local station coverage, but for M6 it probably makes a bit of a difference. The USGS also quote magnitude estimates with each of the moment tensors, these give Mww, Mwc, Mwb & Mwr values of 6.2, 6.2, 6.1 & 6.1 and a wider range of hypocentral depths. It doesn't help us that there is normally no single magnitude estimate for an event - people still argue about the magnitudes for the 1960 Chile, 2004 Indian Ocean and 2011 Japan earthquakes. It would be interesting to know which approach INGV use to calculate their estimate, but it probably doesn't matter as I think that using the INGV estimate is the way to go, with a discussion of other estimates in the text (as we currently have it). These different estimates are neither right nor wrong, but having a "preferred" option is perfectly fine I think. Mikenorton (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanations. Because of all this misunderstanding, I'm going to write to the authors of the INGV analysis and ask them if they can write a blog post about it in their institutional pages. It would be useful to have a reference for cases like these. For the USGS uncertainty, I completely agree with you that the it is statistical only, and doesn't account for systematics. In the meanwhile the page has been reverted to 6.2 ± 0.0something, but I can't be bothered to keep discussing this issue, and I'll just let the US-centric views prevail. Thanks again for sharing your point of view with me.--Japs 88 (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sir,

Somehow I found a site (mapsofworld.com) with good maps and information, wanted to share its some information on wikipedia, but I found it is blacklisted since 2007, I do not understand why this site blacklisted, as it is good for the user, please let me know how I take it out from blacklist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrishseo (talk • contribs) 08:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have already asked for delisting at the right location. People there should explain why it was blacklisted. Mikenorton (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hello

The 48 seconds was "very fast severe constant shaking, knocking over walls etc etc...", not shaking as you described it You interview "anyone" that lives in Sylmar and was awake or semi-awake during the earthquake they will all agree. I lived in Sylmar. If the edit is not done within the next 20 years or so, the accuracy of this earthquake will be lost forever. I am people that lived in Sylmar are the best source of information. The USGS has this but you doubt the shaking severity obviously. Dalewob (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikenorton. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope this message finds you well. There are many lists that are lacking, but this one was just consolidated and it could use a proper tectonic setting section. You know, something that readers can really sink their teeth into. I'm sure there are other obligations or tasks to attend to, so just throw this one on the back burner as something to maybe tackle one day. It seems like there would be quite a bit to cover, but I was thinking of one or two paragraphs that could be the first primary section. Dawnseeker2000 21:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dawnseeker2000, that's something that I should be able to do, although I've been having one of my quieter periods on Wikipedia recently. I shouldn't need to do too much reading around as I did plenty back when I did the various fault system articles. There will be some new stuff to look at, particularly in the Christchurch area. Mikenorton (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I saw from your userpage that you're a geologist, and was hoping you would have time to give an opinion on the Lake Tauca article. As you'll see on the talk page, the main editor there asked me what it would take to bring the article up to featured quality. There are a lot of papers cited, but I think the main problem is that there is no secondary source summarizing and synthesizing the papers into an overview. I don't think it's suitable as a Wikipedia article as it stands because it's simply a grab-bag of data from all the different papers. If no secondary source can be found, I think it'll have to be cut, or at best reduced to little more than a set of tables of data from the various papers. If you have a moment, I'd really appreciate your assessment. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I couldn't see how to mention this at the Earthquake portal (it seems rather inactive), but perhaps you could handle this? At any rate, User:MaxWyss – who is an expert on earthquakes, but not so much on WP – has been working on Earthquake casualty estimation, and has some issues regarding the article's title and "low" importance. I don't believe I am expert enough to advise him much on those (and having worked with him before I may be a bit biased in his favor). So I'd like to find someone who will work with him on that stuff. Perhaps get more page watchers. Any ideas? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The sea floor in and around the cove yields fossils, and oil sands beneath the sea bed form the largest British oil field outside the North Sea area, and contain the highest quality oil in Europe." - Inhowfar is this sentence not about oil sands as such? Puzzled, dazed, and confused -- Kku (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this context it means a sand that bears oil, just a normal reservoir, not an Athabasca like oil sand. When I get time I will reword it to clarify. Mikenorton (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. Just to let you know, I am writing to the admin people re a certain editors total domination of the HF in the UK page. He has now asked me not to edit, ie banned me (totally in contravention of any Wiki policy) leaving the whole page in the hands of someone whose motives are questionable. This is not what Wikipedia is for. If you wish to make sensible comment about this please do, including my editing. Although feisty at times I have always struggled for consensus and accuracy, and I know you have watched over the edits. Any comment is met now with a wall of criticism. You have provided sensible and sane comment when needed. Much needed in these mad times! Kennywpara (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found your photo File:Alluvial fan 01.JPG on an Italian geology textbook for secondary school:

• Pignocchino Feyles, Cristina (2014). ST Scienze della Terra primo biennio. Torino: SEI - Società Editrice Internazionale. p. 168. ISBN 9788805073405.

They do not cite anyone as the author of the photo, unlike other images on that book. --Fornaeffe (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YOur edits are very helpful. Apologies I am not good at this coding yet. MIademarco

Thanks - I'd almost forgotten that article. Mikenorton (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikenorton. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your ratings on the 2018 Alaska earthquake. The ratings had been lowered, by another editor, who is not a member of the related Wikiprojects. I appreciate your participation. Thank you. Juneau Mike (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modern hippo can obtain weigths of 4500kg and is 5m long at most, the Hippopotamus gorgops is bigger on average and not "much larger", also in page in List of largest mammals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_mammals is saying "The largest species in terms of weight is the hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), native to the rivers of sub-Saharan Africa. They can attain a size of 4,500 kg (9,900 lb), 4.8 m (16 ft) long and 1.66 m (5.4 ft) tall.[3] Prehistoric hippos such as H. gorgops and H. antiquus RIVALED or exceeded the modern species as the largest members of the family and order to ever exist." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only exceptionally do hippos (H. amphibius) weigh more than 3200 kg and they are normally less than 2500 kg according to the sources that I've just checked, which makes them considerably smaller than the "average" H. gorgops, although I struggle to find a good source for the 3900 kg figure used in our article. To make sense I think that we should be comparing the average H. gorgops with the average H. amphibius, with the former generally being considerably bigger than the latter. Also it does you no favours at all if you don't include an edit summary to explain what you are doing - such edits are often straightforward vandalism. Finally we don't use other Wikipedia articles as references. I think that we could go with just saying "larger", which is a change that I will make. Mikenorton (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources like this http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Hippopotamus_amphibius/ show that the largest modern hippo was in fact 4500kg, so the biggest ones could be bigger than the H.gorgops, but yes on average looks like the gorgops was bigger, but we don't know if 3900kg is the average or the biggest individual found (fossilized of course)

From what I can make out, the 4500 kg weight is exceptional, with 3200 the normal maximum and less than 2000 the average. If I was sure that 3900 was a good average estimate for H.gorgops (because it must of course be an estimate) then I would be happy to change it back to "much larger". Mikenorton (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the 3900kg is average, I believe is "up to 3900kg", this is the only wikipedia that was saying "much larger", the H.Antiquus for example was "Similar in size and form to Hippopotamus gorgops, H. antiquus on average was larger than the modern common hippopotamus ". "On average". So the 3900kg is probably the biggest size know. It took me a while but I found this: http://i.imgur.com/y12xkOd.jpg Keep in mind that is the largest know skull, so this is where the 3900kg probably come from. 13:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Another find: https://app.box.com/s/8ccpfvbaai5qwta8vb101qcnwaoef9z4

With this quote: "University of Cambridge and at the Natural HistoryMuseum of London, range from the size of average modern hippopotamuses to really massive individuals. The latter are only~10% smaller, in linear sizes, andonly some 7% lighter than the heaviest Collecurti indi-viduals" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 February 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2018 Hualien earthquake, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Zanhe (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that you were also editing that article - thought something was odd (stuff was changing). Hope my edits didn't cause problems for you. :) Vsmith (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same experience, but no problems that I can see, cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for helping, really appreciate it! :) Beckettnoti (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - I'm uploading a few photos of the rocks that I took on a holiday there in 2015 and I'll add those to the article. Mikenorton (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to seeing them, and the map! Beckettnoti (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map may come - I'm currently working on one for the Geology of the Cairngorms National Park, but it's going very slowly. Mikenorton (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The photos look absolutely fantastic, thank you so much - they really complete the article, really impressed with how it's shaped up - a testament to all of you involved with the Geology project! :) Beckettnoti (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. await the Cairngorms piece with excitement - have just finished reading Nan Shepherd's The Living Mountain! :) Beckettnoti (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in Malta, I had the vague idea of writing an article and took pictures accordingly, although I hadn't read up about the geology before I went, so it's a bit hit and miss. Mikenorton (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Geology of Malta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquitanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of earthquakes in Spain, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Carmona and Baza (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2018 Gulf of Alaska earthquake, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And had a draft of a response to your proposal on the list's talk page, saying to just go ahead and do it, because we need to start driving this train and not let the passengers dictate which direction we're going and when. I'll post what I had, and thanks for taking the initiative; that one was going to be tough one. Dawnseeker2000 17:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely surprised, but I will continue trying to get a discussion going. Mikenorton (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this for a while: I'd like to modify the notability guideline to include some details that address minimum qualifications for list entries. I've been linking to it the list footers, so maybe now is the time to actually write something. Had mentioned earlier that either you or J. Johnson could tackle it (it was kind of your thing, but he's quite good with policy-type content), but I guess I could take a stab at it too. A few sentences can go a long way. Dawnseeker2000 06:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading further about standalone lists and found " one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list". I've tried to come up with a way to handle the non-notable events in list articles - starting with the British Isles one - see that talk page discussion. Mikenorton (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as you are the only one in this topic right now, what do you think about the size of these hippo? I really couldn't find any realiable source about the size, where the 4,3m, 2,1m and 3900kg figure come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They come from the cited source (Palmer 1999) - user:Anaxial (who added the citation nearly nine years ago) confirmed that a few days ago - here. Mikenorton (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be, of course, that the published source is wrong - some degree of estimation will naturally have been involved, if nothing else - but that is what it says. Now, while I think it's reliable, it's also a pop science book, so if somebody finds a better source with a more accurate figure, that would be great. I had a quick look myself, and couldn't find one, but that doesn't mean there isn't one out there. Until it turns up though, we're stuck with what we can verify. Anaxial (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, finally a good source, this makes sense now. But still there is a lack of studies about the size of this pre historic hippo, as I found somewhere in the internet some pics of bones of the Hippopotamus gorgops compared to the modern hippo, they were almost the same size, so I believe the 2,1m and 3900kg figure is exaggerated, but anyway I also have no proof. I also found this picture which maybe it's true http://i.imgur.com/y12xkOd.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mikenorton, I see you have edited many geology articles so I would like to have your opinion on this renaming proposal: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_17#Magmatism_not_igneous_petrolog. Thank you! Mamayuco (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moine Thrust Belt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fault (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my attention that the Blisworth Limestone and White Limestone Formation represent the same unit according to the BGS, with both the page for the Blisworth Limestone and the White Limestone saying that they are each others synonym. The fact that there are still two separate articles indicates some sort of error on BGS's end. There also isn't any indication of which name is more prevalent, so I am unsure how to proceed. It is also worth noting that there are three separate articles for the Northampton Sand Formation including Northampton Sand and the Northampton Sands, which need to be merged. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What it seems to be saying is that the two are lateral equivalents of each other. From White Limestone Formation, under Geographical Limits it says "The Stroud to Cirencester area, where it passes south-westwards into the Athelstan Oolite Formation, and north-eastward through Oxon and Bucks to the Brackley area, where it passes north and east into the Blisworth Limestone Formation.", with something similar on the Blisworth Limestone Formation page. So the following are all lateral stratigraphic equivalents (and maybe there are more if I followed through all the other formations): Blisworth Limestone Formation, White Limestone Formation, Athelstan Oolite Formation, the upper part of the Rutland Formation. As to the Northampton Sand Formation, there has been a lot of duplication in articles (two of them were created by the same editor), often related to fossil occurrences - not all palaeontologists are the best at checking the up to date formation names. I'll have a go at merging them. Mikenorton (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that BGS lists the Blisworth Limestone as a previous name of the White limestone formation is what threw me off. It makes more sense if both of those formations were split off the initial "White Limestone" (WLM) mentioned on the pages. I'll make sure to mention it in the articles Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better and a lot clearer now - this naming of units can be so confusing. After looking at the three Northampton sand articles, I propose redirecting Northampton Sands as it has virtually no content and merging Northampton Sand into the Northampton Sand Formation article. Mikenorton (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking also. A merger between the Cornbrash Formation and Cornbrash articles was proposed back in February by User:GeoWriter but it seems they didn't get around to it. So I will give that a go Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage is a user generated travel guide.

You seem to be an expert on some geological matters so was wondering if you could consider adding some "geological tourism" information to relevant Wikivoyage articles? Or even perhaps creating an Itineraries that was a Geologist's tour of Great Britain as that's something that Wikivoyage doesn't yet have...

It would also be appreciated if you could ask your fellow WikiProject Geology contributors if they would also be interested in contributing 'geological' tourism content on Wikivoyage..

I will also note that Wikivoyage doesn't necessarily have a guide on Mineral curiosities to cover things like crystals, gems and other rock related tourism... Hmmm...

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Give me some time to think about this. Mikenorton (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Earthquake into Earthquake rupture. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I am the sole contributor for the text in question, but I will check that now that you've raised it. Mikenorton (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the earthquake article in a single edit here over 8 years ago. Mikenorton (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kimmeridge Clay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weymouth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikenorton. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, wonder if you could check and let me know what you think of what I have located on Google Earth and noted here - the imagery seems to be visible only on Google Earth. Shyamal (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up about shindo being commonly used in English literature on earthquakes in Japan, and for saying so in a friendly manner. Maybe you can help improve the JMA seismic intensity scale article in a manner that doesn’t set off any landmines, since you seem to be quite familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia editing. I’m not going to put any more effort into it because I don’t feel like dealing with someone who is disputatious. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James: If you have any complaints about me you should raise them on my Talk page, not Mike's. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just adding this to replace the old url when you beat me to it so I got an edit conflict! Doug Weller talk 14:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did come up with one from the FDA valid at April 1 2018 and the one you linked to above, but I spotted a link through from the FDA one to the current regulations (eCFR) on the GPO website (still feels like it should be the post office to me) - I just didn't want to see other people feeling justified in removing the whole sentence by saying that it was "out of date". Mikenorton (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have exhibited some interest in the article on Flood Geology. You probably already know that the article is not about floods or geology, or surface-water hydrology, or sedimentary geology, so even though you may not see the need for an about template at the top of the article, because the term "Flood Geology" includes the terms for the separate topics of floods and geology, it is expedient for the distinction to be made at the top of the article so that less-informed readers such as myself are not confused by the homonymous terms. This is noted on the talk page, which I encourage you to participate in before reverting edits.Sotuman (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page gnome) @Sotuman: Please see WP:BRD (consensus is expected before restoring edits). There is no need to dispute with individual editors as the main discussion should occur at the article's talk page. —PaleoNeonate – 03:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikenorton: exactly: Bold Revert DiscussSotuman (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was in relation to this edit which restored the material without consensus. —PaleoNeonate – 05:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate:My comment was in relation to the lackluster discussion from other users on that article. All they say is "concensus, concensus" but there is no effort at discussion, only "oh it looks like you're pushing a creationist POV, therefore we will ignore you," but this is incorrect. The whole flood geology article is a big, ugly straw man that serves no purpose on Wikipedia. If it must stay as-is, like a boil on the face, then it should point to actual floods and geology, in the interest of salvaging some dignity for Wikipedia. Sotuman (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if all further discussions on this topic were confined to the article talk page - thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikenorton. Thanks for the clarification and the suggested changes, the help is greatly appreciated. Arblanchette (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad you think the article has been improved! I had assumed the requirement was a more qualitative "5x improvement" instead of the strict (and not necessarily "good") "5x expansion", but that isn't important. It was exciting to add to Wikipedia for the first time after years of exclusively viewing it. Arblanchette (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikenorton: I was wondering why this revert. If you think the files should be larger, better to use ((largethumb)) then? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe better put the files into a gallery? They just do not look good where they are now, squeezing the text. :-) Lotje (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit removed all the images in that section without an explanation. I have no issue with resizing them. Mikenorton (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, I'll put them in small gallery instead. :-) Lotje (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike! In case you didn't notice, recently WP:WikiProject Climate change launched. We can use the help, if you're interested! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NAEG, I am somewhat interested, although I sometimes struggle to keep up with the two WikiProjects that I'm currently involved in (Geology and Earthquakes) - let me think about it. Mikenorton (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, go ahead and as long as you like, we're open 24/7 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#2019_Kashmir_earthquake

FYI --DBigXrayᗙ 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for starting 2019 Kashmir earthquake Good work. DBigXrayᗙ 18:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I was a little surprised that no-one else had started it. Mikenorton (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, And I was surprised that no-one else had nominated it. But someone has to start, who better than a geologist :). --DBigXrayᗙ 05:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 September 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 Kashmir earthquake, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Spencer^T•C 01:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Geology of the Lake District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 November 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2019 Cotabato earthquakes, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Geology of the Lake District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egremont (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Taylor (civil engineer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coniston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 January 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 Elazığ earthquake, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 19:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1977 San Juan earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bermejo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit to Heinrich event. Nearly choked to death laughing at the WP:EDSUM.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, most of those sink without trace, so I'm glad that somebody appreciated it - I was surprised to find that the term was added by WMC when he created the article 15 years ago. Mikenorton (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thanked you for the "308" correction at L'Aquila because when I saw it yesterday I thought for sure that IP didn't look at the source, and is most likely wrong, but it's been a while since I checked those sources, so I rationalized – well, copped out, to be honest – that, sure, someone else more familiar with that will fix it. Sure enough!

Thanks again for helping with all this twiddly cruft. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really dislike editors messing with the figures in articles, so happy to fix that sort of thing, cheers Mikenorton (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike

You seem to know what you're doing in drawing and uploading geological maps; I'm just embarking on that with two creations - now incorporated at Geology of Monmouthshire and Geology of Mull. I'd always shied away from images in the past as the copyright issues seemed problematic but I'm presuming with appropriate text we're fine with BGS's OpenGovernment mapping. I'm puzzled as to why my uploaded Mons geology png looks washed out because the original doesn't - no such problem though with the Mull map. Any tips you can give re that or anything else w.r.t. geol map uploads would be appreciated. All best wishes as ever Geopersona (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been in California and only got back last week and now with all this COVID-19 stuff going on it's somewhat distracted me. I've always taken the view that as long as; there is no slavish copying going on, different colours and symbologies are used to the original and due acknowledgement is made to the original source, then is should all be fine. Mikenorton (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just in time! Anyway, thanks for that. Geopersona (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure the dolomitisation occurred during diagenesis? Because AFAIK that's a bit of a controversial topic. Also thanks for the help with the article! Licks-rocks (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I was hoping to find a source for that, but have so far failed. I'll mention the issue on the article talk page so that others can chime in. Mikenorton (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, so I've gotten around to run cleanup after the moving operation. First, I've made redirects at all of the original category names using ((category redirect)). Second of all, I took a look at the redlinked categories that you mentioned, and discovered that the admin who was renaming the categories using AWB, Timrollpickering, forgot to go back and manually correct his work. I corrected the bulk of those errors here, checking each entry to make sure things went through.

In that process, I discovered three irregularities that I'd appreciate your input on.

• There's a Category:M V in the template that isn't in the documentation and wasn't in your proposed renaming. The code refers to "Vanek mag."
• Somehow, bLg and n were directed to the same category, Category:Articles using MbLg magnitude scale. Category:M N was not in your list. The code talks about "blg" as "mbLg wave mag." and "n" as "Nuttli (mbLg wave) mag."
• Towards the end, there appears to be a "test" entry directed to Category:M test, which can be accessed using "x" as the input. I don't know if this has to be renamed.

As far as I've seen, I think that the template fixes that I did have cleaned up the redlinks, but if you catch more let me know. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 21:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bibliomaniac15: Thanks for sorting those out. The M_N and M_bLg magnitudes are identical and it was the only merge that I suggested.

As to Mv, that seems to be a variety of Ms, although it doesn't seem to be used anywhere on the project that I've seen. I imagine that M test was used in the early stages of development, although I don't actually know how. I'll contact the originator of these categories to check whether they're still needed. Cheers,Mikenorton (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for everything. Let me know if you need more help. Yesterday I also went over the documentation subpage to fix things up too; hopefully I caught everything there too. bibliomaniac15 18:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bibliomaniac15: M_V is used in seismological literature, particularly European of a certain age, and some catalogues, so worth having. That could be changed to Category:Articles using MV magnitude scale. It still needs to be added to the template as an option, but that template and the relevant article has been under slow development for a few years now and still not quite complete - partly because we keep on finding new magnitude identifiers in the literature - for instance we still have to work out what to do with the Italian INGV's M_e, which is not the same as M_e, but is used in several articles. The test one can go - he'll recreate it if and when he needs it. Mikenorton (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great. Category:M V was never created in the first place, so there wasn't anything to move. I switched the name on the template, but beyond that, the category is open for creation if/when it's needed. bibliomaniac15 18:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks again for following through. Mikenorton (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again Gerda. Mikenorton (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started a draft for the 2020 Alaska earthquake, and I need your geologic expertise on the subject. I realize that your knowledge on these kinds of things far exceed mine, and it would be very valuable to the community if your summation of the earthquake was added to the "Geology" section of the article.

Many thanks, GyozaDumpling (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Please don't publish that draft to mainspace. There's no real value in writing about something with no impact on people, places, and things. Dawnseeker2000 12:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was published prior to your input, I apologize. Would you recommend I begin the deletion process? GyozaDumpling (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No deletion would be required, it could be redirected to the relevant month in the List of earthquakes in 2020 article, as was done with the 2020 Kuril Islands earthquake article. The entry in the list article should be able to include all the important information about the earthquake. Mikenorton (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected the article to the "July" section of List of earthquakes in 2020. Thanks for your suggestion. GyozaDumpling (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the best outcome for now. If a lot more information turns up or numerous scientific papers are written, it can always be turned back into an article. Mikenorton (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been retrieved

Webecoolalasdair Notified me a few days ago that there is substantial notability for the 2020 Alaska Peninsula earthquake, so we both agreed to retrieve it from its blanked, redirected state. It would be great if you could help us redevelop this article with up-to-date research and info. Thanks, GyozaDumpling (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a relatively new wikiperson. I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Alasdair, and am a university student pursuing a degree in Geology. I have a passion for understanding earthquakes. I have a little experience on here, and am working on several earthquake drafts at the moment. I was wondering how I can become a part of the earthquake community on here? I understand you are the head of the earthquakes wikiproject, so I thought it be best that I come here and ask. I would like to become a wikiperson the right way. Thanks. Webecoolalasdair (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alasdair, to become part of the community, just start writing, whether it's a new article (those are more difficult and you need to be aware of things like the notability guidelines that affect earthquake articles, particularly WP:GNG and WP:EVENT), or an expansion of an existing article, there are many of those to choose from. It's not just recent earthquakes that articles are needed for - if they're notable someone will normally start an article - but historical ones that were damaging and caused many deaths are at least as important I think and many of those still lack articles. Mikenorton (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that the Lower Greensand sequences have some errors, BGS indicates the sequence is

• Monks Bay
• Sandrock
• Ferruginous Sands
• Atherfield Clay

While your sequence is:

• Sandrock
• Ferruginous Sands
• Monks Bay
• Atherfield Clay

The Geology of Britain Viewer also backs me up on this, shouldn't be too difficult to change by simply changing the names in the key. Kind regards. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. Mikenorton (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, thanks for spotting that, now corrected, regards, Mikenorton (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikenorton. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.Lcabri (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you get my message Mike as do not know how to reply to you. Louis Cabri Lcabri (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike Thanks for setting me straight. Hope this is right way to respond to your message as I could not figure out how to do it as reply to your message. Yes, both references are useful. The 1978 book by Anna Smith has many errors but needs to be cited and we use one of the museum's water colours in the book. We have so much new information that is well-documented that it makes me wonder how one can ever get facts right on Wikipedia. Louis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcabri (talk • contribs) 22:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your correction.Ronavni (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I may have gotten a little testy on my edits here. Current supercontinents keep reappearing, and so does Zealandia as a minor supercontinent. But, durn it ... --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A minor supercontinent - that would be a continent then, or maybe a major microcontinent? The sooner that the list article is redirected the better, then there'll only be one article to fight over. Mikenorton (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List articles make sense when there are many items in the list. Here it just encourages mischief, because there just aren't that many well-identified supercontinents in the geologic record. Only one at a time by any reasonable definition. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invitation to join the WikiProject Earthquakes (WP Earthquakes), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with Earthquakes. WP hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming Earthquake. Simply click here to accept!

Dam222 (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for asking, but I am already the project coordinator, even if I've not been that active in that role over the last year or so. Mikenorton (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Molucca Sea Plate § map triangle diverging slope are upside down. In case page isn't on your watch list. ty Dawnseeker2000 13:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier I made a edit adding Earthling to the adjective used to describe people from Earth and it was immediately reverted because it was claimed by Mikenorton that it was not a Adjective. My question is how is the use of earthly, terrestrial, terran, tellurian a Adjective while Earthlings are not? Earthy isn’t even used to describe inhabitants who live on earth but rather characteristic of quality’s of people who are from or associated with earth. Earthlings on the other hand is the main description used for people from earth and has been used as such since 1590. If you don’t believe look at the Wikipedia article describing Earthlings BigRed606 (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for removing vandalism. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've spent some time and speak a little of the language of Sweden. Had you heard of this one?

• Lindblom, Eva; Lund, Björn; Tryggvason, Ari; Uski, Marja; Bödvarsson, Reynir; Juhlin, Christopher; Roberts, Roland (2015), "Microearthquakes illuminate the deep structure of the endglacial Pärvie fault, northern Sweden", Geophysical Journal International, 201 (3): 1704–1716, doi:10.1093/gji/ggv112

Dawnseeker2000 09:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recall Chris Talbot (a 1986 paper of his on the topic) giving a talk about that fault at an annual tectonics/structural geology conference back in the mid-1980s. Fascinating set of endglacial faults, that must have created some sizeable earthquakes at the time. The Pärvie Fault certainly looks worthy of an article. Mikenorton (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Earth article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 22, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 22, 2021, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mikenorton: I have written some text on Reigate Stone, which I have added to the Upper Greensand Formation article that you created. This may not be the best place for it, but I am not convinced that there is enough material for a new Reigate Stone article. Would you be able to take a quick look and let me know your thoughts please? (I am not a geologist or engineer, so this is not my area of expertise. My interest is primarily in the historical use of the stone.) Thanks and best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mertbiol:. I think that there is plenty there for a standalone article. I think that there is enough material out there, particularly from various "strategic stone studies" to create a section on "Use", including a summary of the Reigate Stone in Surrey, details about: the Green Glauconitic Sandstone of Devon, the Bonchurch and Ventnor Stone of the Isle of Wight, the Malmstone of West Sussex and Hampshire, the Potterne and Hurdcott Stone of Wiltshire, the Eastbourne Sandstone of East Sussex, the Shaftesbury Stone of Dorset and some information on both Kent and Bedfordshire. Mikenorton (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Mikenorton: Having read around a few other 'stone' articles (and slept on the comments I wrote yesterday), I think I now agree. I will split off the content on Reigate Stone into a new article. Thanks and best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing it. I'll concentrate on producing a "Use" section in the Upper Greensand article, now that I've found some sources. Mikenorton (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Upper Greensand Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freestone.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike

I noticed you'd removed Brent Tor from the list. I've been troubled for some time at the growing list of 'volcanoes in the UK'. So many examples are only volcanoes in a rather tenuous way insofar as they represent the deeply eroded roots of volcanoes from way back. One of my concerns is that the geologically uninformed reader of Wikipedia (and there are many of those despite our best efforts) will conjure up pictures in their mind of gas, ash and lava spewing from the landforms which we see today. I've previously added some material in the introduction to try to dispel this notion but remain concerned. There is the question as to what constitutes a volcano - it cannot surely be a few traces of extrusive or intrusive igneous rock sometimes wholly disassociated from the original landform, can it? cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the whole list is problematic. We really need a source (or sources) that provides a list of former volcanoes. An alternative might be a list of volcanic centres, as that might be something that we could find sources for. That would probably work for the Palaeogene but the older we go, the more difficult it becomes. In the Lake District the Borrowdale volcanics have several identifiable calderas and basins but elsewhere it's less clear. I'll open a discussion about inclusion criteria. Mikenorton (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda, much appreciated. Mikenorton (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across the Strike-slip tectonics article when looking up "Riedel shear". Excellent and useful article (to which you've made major contributions). Thanks! Finney1234 (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: "step over" is a little messy. It looks like "step-over" and "stepover" are acceptable geological alternatives which might be a little cleaner. Any thoughts? Finney1234 (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I don't know if you wrote the following sentence, but it is (IMHO) not very clear (a bit long and convoluted). Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to edit it because I'd worry about changing the intended meaning. The final phrase "until a throughgoing fault is formed" is the confusing part. Again, any thoughts? Finney1234 (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"With further displacement, the Riedel fault segments will tend to become fully linked, often with the development of a further set of shears known as 'P shears', which are roughly symmetrical to the R shears relative to the overall shear direction, until a throughgoing fault is formed".

Hi Finney1234, I'll try to come up with an alternative. To explain the last part, the initial disconnected and en echelon R shears become connected by other shears, eventually forming a single connected fault zone - the term "throughgoing" indicates that the fault zone has become a single zone of faulting going through the whole affected block. Mikenorton (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mikenorton : OK, I made a change that I think matches your description and is more comprehensible. Leave it or change it as you see fit. Finney1234 (talk)

Hey you know that some people don't recognize afro-eurasia as a supercontinent Well I am not giving up because I have a idea That land bridge that once connected Russia to Alaska I think it's possible to bring back beringia by building dams and draining the water and the water covering up Beringia will be sent to the Arctic ocean and the Pacific ocean and with Beringia brought back not only would this help humans with climate change but it also means that Afro-eurasia is connected to the Americas Afro-eurasia + The Americas = Afro-Laurasia and a supercontinent is recognized if all or most of the Earth's landmass are together and Africa is connected to the middle East and Oceania is going to join millions of years later anyways. Kool Kirby (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1822 Aleppo earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mikenorton. I see you have written about the Groningen gas field in the past. I recently wrote a page about it on the Dutch Wikipedia which I translated to English (I am not a native English speaker, so wording is probably not perfect everywhere). I focused mostly on the social, political and historical aspect of the gas field, as I am not a geologist. I tried to add some information to what you already wrote in the past. However, I did not understand everything and had a hard time judging what to keep and how to keep it in a fluent manner. I was therefore wondering if you could check the Groningen_gas_field#Geology section. Maybe you spot errors, know what should be added or should have been kept from previous version. Thanks in advance :) Dajasj (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dajasj:, I will take a more detailed look, sorry not to reply earlier. Mikenorton (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and no reason to hurry! Dajasj (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you add to talk in article if you are actively checking for sources you yourself trust and reverting an article you are watching. Over to you. Obviously the steam component confuses issue wrt orginal definition VEI and subequent debate as to redefinition. No ash eruption column that has reached 35km has ever in history be assigned to a VTE less than 5 see - [1]. If the steam component was more than twice the ash component in volume the debate could go on for years on original definition of VEI. ChaseKiwi (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting to see something definitive in a reliable source that allows us on wikipedia to add this as VEI=5, although its seems quite likely. Shane Cronin said that "early data suggested the eruption could measure as high as five on the volcanic explosivity index (VEI)", which is close but not enough to add it I reckon. Probably worth me starting a discussion on the eruption's page as you suggest. Mikenorton (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the volume quoted in the eruption article as the cited sources are contradictory - stating both "twice the size of Mount St Helens in 1980" and "up to 1 km³" - it can't be both. Mikenorton (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 2010 Chile eethuquiker requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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 "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 deleted 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. Fram (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking an interest in Highlands controversy of Northwest Scotland. I had come across your editing on geological topics and wondered whether to consult you while this was still a draft but I chickened out. As you will have realised I have very slight knowledge of geology, merely a dilettante interest, so I would welcome any improvements. Also, if you'd like to put any suggestions on the talk page, I'll try to deal with them – I have all the reference material to hand. Best wishes. Thincat (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating that article - it's an interesting bit of scientific history, obviously something I've heard about as an undergraduate and later, as my PhD supervisor Stan White was working on samples from Eriboll at that time. He later wrote his own version of the development of the thrust theory, particularly as it pertains to the coining of the word "mylonite", here, which you might find useful. I'll take a further look at this, although, as ever, I'm looking at lots of other things as well, so it might not happen quickly. Mikenorton (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this suggestion. I have added White's paper and a couple of other papers in this Special Edition to "Further Reading" while I actually read them. Thincat (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean about the Argentina quake added by User:Quake1234 on that article is "insignificant"? And why you did not considered the injury (one source says it is due to panic attack) by that quake as "not an injury"? Can't we just consider the injury as indirect? Thank you and hope that you will answer my question here at your talk page soon! Filipinohere (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to set a precedent by including those type of entries our lists would become cluttered with minimal severity events. This is an encyclopedia where readers come to explore noteworthy people, places, and things. As you're aware, if people want to explore the myriad events where someone became scared, they need to look no further than the incredibly detailed earthquake.usgs.gov website. We have to draw the line somewhere. Dawnseeker2000 22:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should be aiming for consistency and not trying to stretch the inclusion criteria to include an excessive number of events, or it's no longer possible to see the notable ones amongst a mass of barely newsworthy events. Mikenorton (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda, as ever much appreciated. Mikenorton (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh; that's the second time I've done that this year :( :(. And I genuinely honest-to-goodness like him!!! My fingers are showing the true nature of my mouth :) Thanks so much for the fix. @David Fuchs: I did it again :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and thanks for the nomination. Mikenorton (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Mikenorton! Your work on Chicxulub crater has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Chicxulub crater (estimated annual readership: 1,276,899) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Chicxulub crater to be today's featured article for an unspecified date. As an editor who has worked substantially on this article, you are invited to comment on its suitability as a TFA on the nomination page. Thanks, and happy editing. Z1720 (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the help! EricFishers11 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I took a stab at re-working ==Earthquake fault types==, its in my User:EricFishers11/sandbox. The section seemed a bit lengthy without subsections so I broke the fault types out and added a new section ==Energy released==. I didn't remove any content - just re-organized and moved some around. I'd be interest to get you thoughts. EricFishers11 (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! You are one of the most active and important editors of WP:QUAKE, and I really appreciate all you have done for Wikipedia. In fact, if it weren't for you thanking me for my first ever edit here (a minor typo correction) I may not have become an active editor. Anyway, I wrote 1995 Aigio earthquake and passed it through GAN. I have made significant improvements since then, and an FA mentor told me it looks ready for FAC. Could you please take a glance at it to see if I may need to improve the prose, some technical term, or really anything? Thank you, SamBroGaming (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm currently travelling, but I'll try to take a look when I get home later this evening or tomorrow. Mikenorton (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you! SamBroGaming (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Took me long enough - I've made some changes to the "Tectonic setting" and "Future threat" sections, which I will address on the article talk page. Mostly I see few issues other than those that I've already dealt with in those edits. I'm a bit concerned about the fault map as it looks like it might be a "too faithful" copy of the original (and therefore a copyright infringement), but I don't have access to the source. If you do, I would be grateful for a copy of Bell et al. (2009) to allow me to check. Mikenorton (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for helping with the article, the phrasing looks better now. I have downloaded a copy of Bell et al. (2009), however I am unsure as to how to best send it over to you. I could email it to you if that works best. SamBroGaming (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Apologies for the late reply, but I have been unable to locate your email address. Where would be the best location to send it to? SamBroGaming (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, you should be able to email me using the "Email this user" feature on this page under "tools". Mikenorton (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the email, the map is fine as far as copyright is concerned, but it lacks quite a bit, such as an explanation for all the fault names and the section lines are unnecessary here. I'll see if I can whip up an alternative map with a topographic background. Mikenorton (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On my edit summary here, I said that the source specifies cracks on plaster, but that does not refer to the December 15 event, but rather to the 3.1 event on November 23. Source didn't reveal what damage exactly was caused to the 20 buildings mentioned. We aren't sure if the damage did by the quake on December 15 was also the same as the one did by the November 23 event. So why won't we consider this as "significant"? Thanks! Filipinohere (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Filipinohere: The main reason for doubting the severity of the damage reports is that the same source mentions 9 reports of damage from an earlier tremor in November (slightly smaller magnitude) saying that they concerned "minor scratches on finishing elements (such as gypsum boards and plaster coats)" (google translate text). Presumably there is likely to be compensation from the mine owners, so even the slightest things will be mentioned. I will discuss this further on the article talk page. Mikenorton (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, there is a similar instance in which you removed the quake in Italy due to "insignificant damages". Quite similar circumstances with the Poland quake (?). Source mentions that fallen plaster and broken windows were reported, as well as a 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in) high tsunami caused by the collapse of a ridge. So, by the way, does the Italy and Poland quakes are deleted from the list for similar reasons? And I noticed that there was a "new standard" for the criteria for the list. Filipinohere (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thanks for the attention to detail and the work you and Geopersona put in, to bring Geology of Dorset up-to-date. Ykraps (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome @Ykraps:, I'm sure that there's still more to do to that article, but at least it's no longer contradictory. Mikenorton (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, because of my English. Please take note of this insert, which has meanwhile spread worldwide in Wikipedia. 2A02:810D:F40:2894:6619:AC6F:5C98:E131 (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ilıca.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The length and width dimensions are expressed as characteristics of the Canyon, while the depth is not expressed that way--the Canyon "attains" the depth. The first two should be connected by "and"; the third should be preceded by "and." People need to get over this widespread phobia over using "and" too many times. Change it back. Rontrigger (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you made the change, I just think that the original reads better, even if it's not "proper". My English language education, however, was definitely lacking, so I wouldn't claim to know what's right here. Mikenorton (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wytch Farm, many sources online claim it's the largest oil field in Europe (not just Western Europe). I wonder what's the truth?

2A00:23C7:69B1:501:D4E5:E92:CA89:C5B5 (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few reliable sources Journal of Petroleum Geology, Energy Industry Review, Reuters for Patos-Marinza's claim, although there are sources that just say it is one of the largest. For Wytch Farm there are plenty that say it is the largest in western Europe specifically, UK onshore oil and gas, BBC, Bowman et al. 1993 (first sentence "The Wytch Farm Field is the largest onshore oilfield in Western Europe"). Don't rely on local press, they often get things wrong. I've tried to find a list of european oilfields by size, but no luck so far. Mikenorton (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you for that and the for the helpful tip! 2A00:23C7:69B1:501:D4E5:E92:CA89:C5B5 (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mike,

I am Domenico Di Giacomo, senior seismologist with the International Seismological Centre (ISC, http://www.isc.ac.uk/about/staff/) and with this email I'd like to seek your help to address a problem that Wiki users will have in the near future. To explain the issue let's consider the ISC event link for the Dalbandin Earthquake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Dalbandin_earthquake) where the ISC Event Bibliography link directs to http://isc-mirror.iris.washington.edu/cgi-bin/FormatBibprint.pl?evid=15938045. This link is actually from our mirror site hosted by colleagues in the US (it appears to me all links you kindly added use the mirror site instead of www.isc.ac.uk.). The same page is available at http://www.isc.ac.uk/cgi-bin/FormatBibprint.pl?evid=15938045, which is from our own website. Using the mirror site link is all right for the time being but the mirror site in the US will no longer be available within the coming months.

Thus, I wonder if it is possible for you to update the "root" of the URLs linking to ISC pages by replacing http://isc-mirror.iris.washington.edu/ with http://www.isc.ac.uk

Please bear in mind that I am new to Wikipedia as an editor role so I am not be aware of the best way to update content. I just thought that it would be best to touch base with you first and discuss both what's the best way to address this issue and possible way forwards.

With Kind Regards

Domenico Domenicodigiacomo (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Domenicodigiacomo: Dear Domenico, thanks very much for the heads-up. The link is introduced into earthquake articles by adding the event number to the earthquake infobox template. This was set up by an editor who is sadly no longer active, so I will have to seek help to find out exactly how the url is generated, so that it can be amended. I would just like to say how incredibly useful the online bibliography is when creating and updating earthquake articles.

Regards, Mikenorton (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if I can help in any way, and thanks for the kind words Domenicodigiacomo (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll let you know how I get on. Mikenorton (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Domenicodigiacomo: well that was simpler than I was hoping - fortunately the people at the help desk are very helpful with that sort of thing. Now I just have to find the best way of updating all the links to individual earthquakes in the NOAA earthquake database that I haven't already fixed - no heads-up there, the links just stopped working one day, linkrot (as we call it) is a major issue here. - I found out how to do that, just 487 more links to update.

Given that you're a seismologist, which I am not, is there anything major that you've noticed with our earthquake articles that could be improved? Mikenorton (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the quick looks that I had so fat I think that the pages are good and informative. I don't have any particular suggestion at the moment, I will try to find the time to look at them more closely and come back to you if I think of anything Domenicodigiacomo (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and please don't feel obligated. We have very few to no active geophysicists working on earthquake articles here and I sometimes feel a little exposed by my lack of any formal seismological training, particularly when I do things like write articles on supershear earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone looking in, I'm currently recovering following a pulmonary embolism a few days ago. I'm responding well to treatment but have little idea when I will be able to contribute again effectively. Mikenorton (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best to you brother. Your presence here makes this place tolerable! Dawnseeker2000 17:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dawnseeker2000, much appreciated. Mikenorton (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you get well soon. Ben MacDui 14:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MacDui. Mikenorton (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sending you my best wishes and a speedy recovery, Mike Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add my very best wishes here too, Mike. Geopersona (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you have a quick recovery, Mike. You are an integral member of the community and I appreciate your efforts. SamBroGaming (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. I'm back at home, but possibly on blood thinners for the rest of my life, which is nothing too terrible. I'm going to start trying to pick up my editing again but it will be slow to begin with because I'm profoundly weary much of the time. Mikenorton (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry to hear about the PE, Mike, but I hope your recovery is progressing smoothly. Sorry for the delayed response - I only check Wikipedia so often these days. Fondly, ceranthor 05:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]