This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello! Your submission of Orcadian Basin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ishtar456 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I just made a suggestion, really. Also, the name of the article should be in bold.

I made another suggestion.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I also have a question about a citation.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem with the nom for 1663 Charlevoix earthquake. There is also a problem with posting the usual template, apparently. --Ishtar456 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of 1663 Charlevoix earthquake at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ishtar456 (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC) much more better.

• • Please see my last comment.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot tell you how sorry I am about that mistake. I am on a new computer, that might be my excuse. Anyway, I followed the directions you gave me for DYK check. But I am an old dog and this new trick is beyond me. I do not use any of the wikipedia tools. I have tried before and I just don't understand the language (same reason I don't try to mess with images any more). I do not know what is meant by "toolbox". Do they mean the one on my browser? I don't think so. It says "after find redirects" I do not see anything anywhere that says that. I think I will stick with my java counter as the problem I had today was not the counter, but the time zone. Thanks for your help and understanding.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC) PS from that date it was a 7x expansion.

Thanks, apparently I had done everything correctly, I just did not know where the toolbox was, duh! That does look pretty handy. Your article is already in prep. Mine has been on there for 5 days and no one has touched it. And I have done a couple dozen reviews while I have been waiting. Tomorrow it will go in the older noms list. Frustrating. --Ishtar456 (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Well thanks to you for doing the reviews of my last two nominations. I still need to do one for the Orcadian Basin nom, but keep getting distracted (that distraction will be nominated tomorrow I think). I've had to wait for nine or more days to have a nom reviewed on several occasions in the past, so don't get too concerned yet. I would review yours, but that would look a little too much like an arrangement :-). Mikenorton (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Mine is really long anyway, which it why I think people are avoiding it. Take Care, --Ishtar456 (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

On 5 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1663 Charlevoix earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that missionaries to the colony of New France welcomed the 1663 Charlevoix earthquake as a miracle rather than a disaster? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1663 Charlevoix earthquake.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

On 9 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Orcadian Basin, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Devonian Orcadian Basin once contained a lake estimated to be hundreds of kilometres across, forming distinctive sediments (pictured) in which a diverse fauna of fossil fish has been found? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Orcadian Basin.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited 17 AD Lydia earthquake, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cyme and Myrina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

On 14 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 17 AD Lydia earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 17 AD Lydia earthquake was described by Pliny the Elder as the "greatest earthquake in human memory"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/17 AD Lydia earthquake.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 23:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, if you pay attention to the hits that DYKs get, you'll need to check two pages: I've moved it to the standard title of "AD 17", so you'll need to check both http://stats.grok.se/en/201203/17_AD_Lydia_earthquake and http://stats.grok.se/en/201203/AD_17_Lydia_earthquake for the full results. Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that according to WP:MOSNUM#Year numbering systems AD may be placed either before or after the year number. Mikenorton (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

On 16 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kačák Event, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Kačák Event caused widespread marine anoxia, forming black shales such as those that generate gas in the Marcellus Shale? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kačák Event.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Bioevent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biota (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That bit had to do with the fact that hydraulic fracturing can occur naturally, or it can be induced in order to achieve some goal like gas extraction. Induced would be a better word that accelerated. I'm not messin' with it though.Smm201`0 (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've added some historical earthquakes from the Spanish Wikipedia page to the list. If you find them not suitable to be included, please feel free to delete them. Qrfqr (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that it's fine to include redlinks in lists like this - it just gives us all something to aim at. The list is looking much more complete now. Mikenorton (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

On 30 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1762 Arakan earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the magnitude of the 1762 Arakan earthquake may have been as high as 8.8? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1762 Arakan earthquake.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of 1906 Aleutian Islands earthquake at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chris857 (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits at Haffield Breccia it is not my area of expertise and your edits really helped. If you would be kind enough to keep it on your watch list (to watch for vandalism etc), I will remove it from mine. -- PBS (talk)

It's on my watch list - I grew up by the Lickey Hills and did some of my first geology around there. Mikenorton (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

On 5 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1906 Aleutian Islands earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the occurrence of the 1906 Valparaíso earthquake thirty minutes after the 1906 Aleutian Islands earthquake was probably just coincidence? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1906 Aleutian Islands earthquake.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Carabinieri (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

because per the wikilink that had the real name for Kutch it was changed to Kucchcch which is not the term used today. Even the wiki articles use Rann of Kutch. Sure the old sources for the day may name it as such, but WP is not published 100 years ago. The contemporary and proper name is Kutch for the location where it happened.Lihaas (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've copied this to the article talk page and replied there. Mikenorton (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

On 9 April 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1819 Rann of Kutch earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that an 80 km long, 6 m high mound formed by the 1819 Rann of Kutch earthquake was known as the Dam of God? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 17:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I replied your proposal at Talk:869 Sanriku earthquake and tsunami#Name again.--Mujaki (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mujaki for letting me know. Mikenorton (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes you made to the Holly article - not only clarification of terms, but an extra reference and info too (how much did you have to search to find that, I wonder?). Thanks again! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It didn't take that long - the time consuming bit is working out whether you've got a fair representation of views on something like this. Mikenorton (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've not c ehcked talk, but I can guess what the complaint will be. As a compromise, want to put the stuff onto the Texas article instead of the frackin one?? ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably the Jackson School of Geosciences, if it goes anywhere. Mikenorton (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited 2012 Indian Ocean earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deformation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike,

I've expanded the article with a DYK in mind. It's at 5.7X right now and I have a proposed hook though I haven't posted the DYK nomination yet. Are you busy these days? The article is missing the technical aspect and a tectonic setting section could round it out nicely. This one's been in my sandbox for a good month or so. The hook might be something like:

... that four of the twentieth century Parkfield earthquakes had similar intensities and showed a solid resemblance to the dawn foreshock of the great 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake?

Work's slowing down but taking a class to fill my time. Hope all is good with you, Dawnseeker2000 03:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Just finished a licensing round (UK offshore), so things easing off a bit right now. I'll take a look at the article tomorrow as it's late here and I've just returned from taking my daughter back up to Uni after the Easter break. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Lunchtime here & just checking in. Will probably do the DYK tomorrow after work. Haven't touched the article since last weekend, and not finished with the sources that I have. Any you know, that's true for the 1979 Imperial Valley article too. I've really liked working on that one, and there's more detail that can be added; I keep finding new sources. I did think that maybe the content is getting too detailed, but the really detailed stuff only amounts to a few paragraphs. Dawnseeker2000 18:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on the tectonic setting section 'as we speak (?type)' (did that sound a little guilty?). I also found (that should be rediscovered) a reference on supershear rupture propagation relating to the 1979 Imperial Valley earthquake. For nearly 20 years it was the only example of propagation at such high speeds and most seismologists didn't take it too seriously, but then from 1999 to 2002 there were three big strike-slip earthquakes with good instrumental records that confirmed that such ruptures could occur and might be particularly damaging. Part of my procrastination over the Fort Tejon article was me digging into the references on supershear. There's more sources out there now and I aim to expand it, and DYK it if there turns out to be sufficient material for a 5x expansion. Mikenorton (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :) I posted a nomination with a simplified version of the proposed hook last night. Dawnseeker2000 14:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, and there are many alternative hooks if that one doesn't get approval. I'll aim to take a thorough look at the article and see what I can add, in an attempt to justify your inclusion of my name in the nomination. Mikenorton (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mikenorton. You have new messages at Killervogel5's talk page.
Message added 23:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello! Your submission of 1966 Toro earthquake at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Empathictrust (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

On 10 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that four of the twentieth-century Parkfield earthquakes had similar intensities to the dawn foreshock of the great 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1857 Fort Tejon earthquake.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

On 11 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1966 Toro earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a large aftershock following the 1966 Toro earthquake caused more deaths in the Democratic Republic of Congo than the original earthquake? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1966 Toro earthquake.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I found an error in the article (see photo). Copernicus was not a German, he was from Poland. --Top811 my talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Geology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Mikenorton, as RockMagnetist invited Ceranthor too, as WikiProject Earthquakes is a daughter of Wikiproject Geology, as you are a member of WikiProject Geology, as you edited plate reconstruction, as you wrote so many DYKs, as you are an active editor, do you want to throw in your two cents too? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see that you were invited already ;) Cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mikenorton. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
Message added 21:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

I have already removed the template warning and explained to the User what happened, on his Talk page. Thank you for taking the trouble. I appreciate it. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Mike. Wanted your input in this: see, I added the peak ground accelleration of the 2010 Pichilemu earthquake to its table. the strongest was in Curicó (according to the coordinates). however, is it possible that the earthquake could have reached 8.6 g ? I'm not sure, I may not be using well the data in the reference... thanks. Diego Grez (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Diego, sorry for the delay in responding, that seems an unfeasibly high number. I'll check what the sources say. Mikenorton (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That's 8.6%g or 0.086g if you prefer - PGA is always quoted as %g. Mikenorton (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah! thanks for the response Mike! Diego Grez (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I need help to improve the pages: 2012 Emilia earthquakes and List of earthquakes in Italy Thank you -- Robyc73 15:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.133.177 (talk)

Hi - what in particular - I've already added a lot to the 2012 Emilia earthquakes article. Mikenorton (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The earthquake while not having a great magnitude has produced extensive damage due to the sandy bottom. the area was not considered high seismicity and the earthquakes recorded only phenomenon of Ferrara in 1570! For this reason many people have found themselves unprepared and very shocked. Geologists today are reviewing some data not so precise on the area. Thanks for your valuable contribution -- Robyc73 15:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.127.164 (talk)

I need help to improve the pages: 2012 Emilia earthquakes and List of earthquakes in Italy Please put the exact magnitude of the earthquake of June 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.17.125.225 (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you Robyc73 19:00, 06 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.17.125.225 (talk)

I added the magnitude scale and the original INGV source for the information. Mikenorton (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

On 11 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Silicate perovskite, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that silicate perovskites may make up to 93% of the lower mantle and that the magnesium form is considered to be Earth's most abundant mineral? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Silicate perovskite. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mike. I don't know if you saw my comments at User talk:Mikenorton/sandbox about the prototype fault table. I would like to try some variations, preferably there to better compare the results. Would you be agreeable to that? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert JJ, I thought that I had it watched, but apparently not. I'll reply there. Mikenorton (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

More comment requested. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

About ready. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I appreciate that evolution is not your thing, but I noticed you made a contribution to the Darwin page so I thought you might be interested in the latest development in evolutionary thought from Eugene McCarthy http://www.macroevolution.net/support-files/forms_of_life.pdf -- Darwin was so close, yet so far from the real source of genetic variation.

Please let me know what you think, thanks, Derek

DerekSmith (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

On 27 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1983 Sea of Japan earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although a tsunami warning was issued 14 minutes after the 1983 Sea of Japan earthquake, the first wave had struck the coast two minutes earlier? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1983 Sea of Japan earthquake. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

On 27 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1169 Sicily earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1169 Sicily earthquake happened on the eve of the feast of St. Agatha and killed many who were gathered in the Catania Cathedral for the feast? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1169 Sicily earthquake. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited 1169 Sicily earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert of Loritello (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

On 4 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1968 Belice earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that nine years after the 1968 Belice earthquake sequence struck western Sicily, 60,000 refugees were still living in temporary accommodation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1968 Belice earthquake. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Mike, with your review's caveats in mind, I took a look at the article today with a view toward finally failing it, but upon further investigation I think perhaps it ought to be passed. Can you please take a look at what I wrote, and register any further thoughts? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

See question on talk page. Thanks for doing this! Much better job than we could have done!PumpkinSky talk 13:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've replied there - there's still a lot to add on the damage and the aftermath - the area had no building regulations, but that soon changed. Mikenorton (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm nom'd this at Template:Did you know nominations/1935 Helena earthquake, listing you as primary. Feel free to tweak the nom, propose alts, etc. I'll keep doing what I can to help. Many thanks.PumpkinSky talk 13:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look there. I've been trying to finish off an article on 'Shungite', but too many contradictory sources, so this was an attractive displacement activity. Mikenorton (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

	knowledge of earthquakes
	Thank you for sharing your interest in geology and what makes the earth move, writing your own articles on earthquakes and improving those of others, repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian, 10 July is your day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, there are still hundreds of important earthquakes without articles (we are missing many of these) and many more that need expanding. Likewise for geology, I don't see the need for article creation or expansion fading away anytime soon. Mikenorton (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

How cool is that? Well-deserved bit of recognition. Well this might as well be as good as any to speak up with my own thank you. Still following your lead in the earthquake area. The introduction into the DYK area of WP this last winter was appreciated. There are so many articles to improve. Dawnseeker2000 01:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Shungite, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vesicle and Luster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

On 15 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shungite, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Peter the Great set up Russia's first spa in Karelia based on the water-purifying qualities of shungite? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shungite. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

On 16 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1935 Helena earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the most heavily damaged building in the 1935 Helena earthquake was the Helena High School, which had been completed just two months earlier? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1935 Helena earthquake. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

On 17 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Siljan Ring, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Siljan Ring, a very large impact crater in central Sweden, has been the site for two attempts at commercial exploitation of natural gas and oil based on the theory of abiogenic petroleum? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siljan Ring. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike

Many thanks for the geology of Dorset map - it's what's been needed. I thought I'd let you know, just in case you read the Geology of Dorset article when you put up the new map, and thought that the article could do with changing as well as the map, that Ykraps has been working on a complete rewrite of the article, which is nearly ready for pasting up and is radically different to the page as exists now. And thanks again for the map - you've been fantastically helpful! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's OK, I don't want to produce too many maps like that, but the BGS online mapping website makes it feasible at least, although their colour schemes are terrible and they don't emphasise boundaries with a solid line - I guess that's deliberate. I was thinking about the article, because so much of it was on geomorphology - good to hear it's being re-written. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Yes, thanks once again for the map and thanks for your comments on the new Geology of Dorset article. I confess that a few short weeks ago I knew nothing about the subject of geology so it is highly likely that I have misunderstood or misinterpreted parts of Ensom's book. Any corrections or alterations you wish to make to the article in my sandbox, I'm sure will be an improvement. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to Ensom's book so I'll make no comment on that. Dorset is a classic area for structural geology, so I'll see what I can come up with - I'll work on a section in one of my sandboxes until it's about ready so that we don't get confused - I'll also see if I can come up with some cross-sections, Underhill and Paterson have a few that I could modify and I have one that I did for a client nearly 14 years ago along the seismic line down Portland Bill (B92-40 - you can see it on the UKOGL website [1]), although I will actually base it on one that's been published - it may just look rather like mine. Mikenorton (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

On 3 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1972 Qir earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that two-thirds of the population of the town of Qir in Iran were killed by an earthquake in 1972? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1972 Qir earthquake. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of 1981 Playa Azul earthquake at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey! This nomination template has been looked over and since the reviewer suggested a hook, ONLY THE HOOK needs to be looked over by another new reviewer. The rest of the article has been surely taken care of. If you have the time to just check it out, please do so. Thanks. Khyati Gupta (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey thanks for reviewing it! What does "AGF" mean?Khyati Gupta (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It means 'Assume Good Faith', in this case that the hook is supported by the cited source (ref#1), because I don't have access to it. Mikenorton (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

		The 100 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Congrats on getting to 100 DYKs. :) LauraHale (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey thanks Laura, I still find the number of articles that need writing or greatly expanding almost overwhelming and the DYK requirements are a good stimulus to produce at least a start class article, so I guess that I may produce a few more yet. Mikenorton (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey. This nomination needs approval after proposing over 7 alternatives for the hook. Please check it out when you have a chance. Thanks in advance.Khyati Gupta (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I was just about to leave a message to let you know I had replaced the Geology of Dorset article and ask you whether you wanted to add your structure section...But I see you've already done it. :)--Ykraps (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It came up on my watch list - it means that I can clear another sandbox. I still need to produce a cross-section, because It think that it would help people to understand. I haven't forgotten. Mikenorton (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A cross section would be good. I look forward to seeing it.--Ykraps (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Bug me if it doesn't appear - I'm apt to forget such things. Mikenorton (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Will do!--Ykraps (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/1893 Quchan earthquake, 1895 Quchan earthquake at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with ((db-g7)), or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Oignies Abbey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Namur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. I've rewritten/reworked trying to keep it somewhat simple but I'm not sure about how successful I've been. I have this book as well which is also very technical:

• De Graciansky, Pierre-Charles et al. (2011). The Western Alps, From Rift to Passive Margin to Orogenic Belt. Amsterdam: Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-444-53724-9

I think that for a summary what I have now is better and might do in the main article - although it still needs a bit of tweaking. Feedback is welcome. I'm taking a break for a while. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been expanding the mineral article, and was wondering if you could take a look at what I've done, what I've screwed up (hopefully not much!), and what I'm missing or have too much of. I've been thinking of adding perhaps a bit on more advanced mineral ID (e.g. optical mineralogy, XRF, electron or ion microprobes, spectroscopy, and so on), and maybe more on mineral environments and associations; however, in a general article like this, perhaps the advanced stuff would go better in to mineralogy, and environments and associations might be veering too much into describing geology as opposed to discussing minerals. Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 17:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

On 27 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1981 Playa Azul earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1981 Playa Azul earthquake ruptured the central part of the Michoacán seismic gap? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1981 Playa Azul earthquake. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

		The Geology Barnstar
		Thanks for setting me on the right track with the Alps. I couldn't have done it without expert advice. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I'm not sure that I did enough to justify it - one day I'll take a good look at the underlying articles. Mikenorton (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes the least expected ones are the best. My knowledge of geology goes as far as (maybe) recognizing Fool's Gold from the real thing. When I began this I didn't even know the word orogeny! You and VSmith kept me from making some massive (massif!) blunders and for that I'm grateful. It would be nice for someone to have a look at the sub-articles - most of them are unsourced. Thanks again! Truthkeeper (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

dear mikenorton how can you forget to put the great himalayan range in your examples of the fold mountains page, as they are also fold mountains and has the world's highest peak mt. everest. also i would recommend to use animations and graphics for explaining the formation of fold mountains.this page contains less information than i expected.please make it informative through more pictures and animations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.176.146 (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the problem with Fold mountain is that the term is now obsolete, because mountains can't be simply subdivided into 'fault' and 'fold' mountains, as both processes are generally involved and faulting is normally the most important. The highest part of the Himalayas is formed by a slab that is being extruded between the Main Central Thrust and the South Tibetan Detachment (see Figure 17 here) - the dominant mechanism of mountain formation here is faulting, any folding is secondary. You will struggle to find any geological descriptions of the Himalayas written in the last 30-40 years that describe this as a fold mountain belt. Mikenorton (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

On 3 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1893 Quchan earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1895 Quchan earthquake had a lower death toll than the one that struck the town in 1893, partly because most of the rebuilt houses used a lighter form of construction? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

On 3 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1895 Quchan earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1895 Quchan earthquake had a lower death toll than the one that struck the town in 1893, partly because most of the rebuilt houses used a lighter form of construction? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

On 5 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1979 Tumaco earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the tsunami triggered by the 1979 Tumaco earthquake coincided with low tide, greatly reducing the area inundated and the likelihood of a far higher death toll? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1979 Tumaco earthquake. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, hope you're doing fine. I can tell you it's been a busy and exiting year for me here in Portland. I'm stopping by to see if you're interested in doing a DYK on the 1988 Spitak earthquake. I have a draft that I've been working on for a while and that is at 6x, although I really didn't know that I'd be able to expand it to meet the DYK requirements. The more I looked at the sources, the more I realized how many aspects of the story there are so I just kept writing. There's some relatively heavy political bits to it, but most of that is restricted to the intro, but I have been hooked on the story since starting this and, as I mentioned last time, I think the tectonic setting sections really are the icing on the cake for these articles, especially the articles that have other diverse elements of the story included. I won't be posting it till at least Sunday the 23rd as I have a handful of story lines and sources that are yet untold or used. Dawnseeker2000 04:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes fine thanks, just going through a phase of not doing so much at WP. I'll take a look at your draft over the weekend and see what I can come up with. Mikenorton (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I posted the article & it should be easy to come up with a hook (There's so many angles to the story & I have a few in mind). If you're already on a break away from WP, no worries. There's always next time. With the pace I've been setting these last few months I'll probably be needing the same. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 18:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, sorry not to respond, I took a look and didn't think that there was much for me to add without some substantial digging, which I don't seem to have the energy for right now. However, I'm still editing a bit and there will be articles that just demand to be written in the future, so hopefully we can collaborate then. Mikenorton (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I've been working on the St Merryn article to provide sources for information in the article - and I've hit a brick wall on this:

• The land under St Merryn is a shallow clay and shale 'dish' which accounts for the high water table despite the elevated position of St Merryn village, hence the success of local farming

Do you, by chance, know where there's a good source for information about the geology in St Merryn, Cornwall? If so, that would be a big help! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this, hopefully this weekend, if I don't respond, feel free to give me a nudge. Mikenorton (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carole, I've looked around but can find nothing definitive, I know what the bedrock is - Middle Devonian sediments - and that there are patches of alluvium, which includes clays, but nothing on raised water tables related to that that I've been able to find - sorry. Mikenorton (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That's ok. Thanks for checking!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have a mo could you take a look at Bedrock Geology UK North - Archaean and Palaeoproterozoic? Cheers Ben MacDui 19:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been around for a while, but I'm not actually Archaean you know. That new article covers the same ground as Hebridean Terrane and Lewisian complex, I'll start a discussion on the talk page and let the editor know - thanks for the heads up. Mikenorton (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have access to the BGS publication (Bedrock Geology UK North) that appears to be the source of this? I don't have a copy to verify it (have one oredered, but it may take a few days to arrive). Seems this is also a copyvio. The user seems reluctant to discuss. Vsmith (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my copy of that map is a genuine antique (from the 60s I think) and hopelessly out of date. I should have dropped into the Geological Society library or the Natural History Museum bookshop when I was going that way a few nights ago and done some comparisons. The user hasn't responded to anybody as far as I know, which makes it very difficult - it would be great if the BGS were to change there policy and allow all the there stuff to be public domain, but that seems unlikely to happen. Mikenorton (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Given comments about geology here, I was wondering if I might need your assistance as the matter is apparently "complex" according to Haswell-Smith. Then I noticed the magical appearance of Rhinns complex, which I shall certainly be borrowing from. Sláinte! Ben MacDui 16:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Not so magical, the only thing that was in the Bedrock Geology UK etc. Archaean and Proterozoic article (now defunct) and not in the Lewisian complex was a mention of the Rhinns complex and that caused me to look for sources and then I realised there was plenty to make an article and now I'm working on the Colonsay Group, because I hate leaving redlinks behind - I really should come up with a plan rather than just wandering off in new directions all the time, but that's unlikely to happen. This all of course leads back to the Dalradian Supergroup, a task that I've been putting off for months. It occurs to me that a geological map of Islay would be more than useful - I'll see if I get the time to do that (it will allow me to put off the Dalradian for another while). Mikenorton (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Lucky that the Archaean and Proterozoic article popped up on the "new articles watchlist". A map would of course be very useful. I have now had a first stab at mangling the Rhinns complex into Islay along with some other extra bits and pieces. The problem is that the only text I have that gives any kind of overview is Haswell-Smith, who is not a geologist. If you could take two mins to look at the geology sub-section there and let me know if I am missing anything crucial I'd much appreciate it. Ben MacDui 19:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The geology of Islay can be summarised as two blocks either side of the Loch Gruinart Fault- to the west the Paleoproterozoic Rhinns complex and its Neoproterozoic sedimentary cover the Colonsay Group (which may correlate with the Grampian Group, the lowermost part of the Dalradian), while to the east is the Bowmore group (also probably part of the Grampian Group) in tectonic contact (the Loch Skerrols Thrust or shear zone) with other younger Dalradian rocks of the Appin and Argyll Groups (including the Islay Sub-Group that contains the Port Askaig Tillite - the regional marker in the Dalradian sequence). As far as I can make out there are no Cambrian or younger rocks on Islay (apart from some Paleocene intrusions). What I can't provide yet is a set a complete set of sources for all that - I'm still looking (and unfortunately I shall be turning in fairly soon). I'll try to spend some time on this tomorrow evening. Mikenorton (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

OK and thanks. I feared that H-Smith was either a little on the glib side and/or that understandings have changed in the recent past. There is more I could use from this site, although I'm concerned about its accuracy/standing as an RS. Ben MacDui 08:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful map and many thanks. Ben MacDui 15:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been struggling to first understand the concepts, and then to put them into clear language with introducing hopeless inaccuracies. I think I am failing on both counts. You might find these two diagrams inspiring if you were still in a diagram-drawing mood. I think they are very expressive. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Were you referring specifically to more diagrams on sedimentation or perhaps more general conceptual diagrams on rift segmentation and accommodation zones? Mikenorton (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The second. I was thinking a simplified version of one of these diagrams would help show the idea of two half-grabens on opposite sides of a fault with an accommodation zone between them. I like the style of the diagram you added, but don't think I can reproduce it. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, although I still need to produce a geological map of Islay for the Islay article and a cross-section for the Geology of Dorset article. The sedimentation diagram was one that I produced earlier for an internal wiki for a major oil company (although completely redrawn for this purpose, at least I new what it would look like) so I'll need to do some thinking here - give me a ping if nothing turns up within a couple of weeks (sorry not promise anything sooner - I'm away a lot over the next two weeks). Mikenorton (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If you check the latest version you will see my crude attempt to show the difference between graben and half-graben. I don't like it at all. I just don't have the skills to make diagrams that look good. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that it does the job, which is all that's needed - anyway that's the Islay map finished, so onto the cross-section. Mikenorton (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mike. I wonder if you (or anyone else interested in raising the quality of the Earthquake prediction article) would look-in on a discussion at Talk:Earthquake prediction. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi JJ, I've been keeping an eye on that without commenting as yet. I'm on a short break at the moment with only intermittent computer access - but if I get the chance I'll try to contribute my thoughts. Mikenorton (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mike. I still have an ambition to bring oil shale related articles to FA quality level. I think that maybe Oil shale geology, now assessed as GA, is worth of this effort. However, I am not sure what should be done with this article as I reached to the edge of my knowledge about geology. Maybe you good asiist with this article or may recommend somebody who may know more about the topic of oil shale geology? Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Beagel, I'm not very knowledgeable about oil shale, although if you have specific geological problems with any FA review, let me know and I'll try to help. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mike. I am a student of the Open University, UK, but from Germany. Some time ago I wrote the last part of "Verwerfung (Geologie)", "Aufschluß von Verwerfungen..." in Wikipedia german. I am not sure, if this part is appropriate in English for "Faults (Geology)". I tried to edit it last evening, but I had difficulties with the 4 pictures, they did not opened. Thank you very much for your interest and time efforts. 31.16.117.179 (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Schuetzler_6231.16.117.179 (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, as I commented at your talk page, I checked the originals on the German Wikipedia, but didn't think that they were that helpful. Can you explain to me exactly what you were trying to show with those diagrams? The problem with the images was that you used the word 'datei' rather than 'file' and the word 'miniatur' rather than 'thumb', replace those and the pictures would appear. Mikenorton (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike, in summary it is a simple trick to differentiate between a normal and a reverse fault only from the direction of dip and the outcrop pattern to the left and right of a fault. If you held your hands in the direction of dip of the strata ( younger strata crop out in the direction of dip always), the u p p e r hand always represents the direction, how the outcrop of strata moves on one side of the fault. Once away from the person, the hand down ( ~ to the North ...), once towards the person, the hand upwards (~ to the South...). The u p p e r hand represents always the u p p e r part of the fault (subsequently eroded of course) and in such way you have the result if it is a normal or reverse fault. (Not a scientific invention but it maybe helpful in time efforts during analysis.) I found it useful during sitting at a computer game for analysing faults (outcrops) of the Open University some years ago. Kind regards Andreas Schuetzler from Germany ( I am today reading "Structural geology" by M. King Hubbert, ofcourse that's a totally different "class".) <Schuetzler 62> 31.16.123.135 (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC) </Schuetzler 62>

Ah OK Andreas, you're referring to the apparent offset of dipping beds on a map as a result of dip-slip faulting - although this assumes that you know the slip direction of course. I will give this some thought as I couldn't work that out from the images. I realised that I failed to finish my comment about getting your pictures to appear on the english wikipedia, so I've added that to my reply above. King Hubbert was a remarkable geologist - I still go back to him to understand hydrodynamic trapping. Mikenorton (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Mike, as I think you are the supervisor for geological topics here, I would like to inform you, that I have not further interest in publishing "Offset of outcrop pattern...". Mainly because it is a little bit to complicated at Wikipedia ( 2 pictures did not opened also after renaming and I do not see any changes in the article). Furthermore I do not know any opinion regarding the issue. It s enough. Kind regards <Schuetzler 62>31.16.106.78 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)</Schuetzler 62>

OK Andreas and thank you for trying to improve the visualisation of the effects of faulting - I will try to come up with some figures based on your idea - perhaps involving the offset of folds, so that the two dip directions can be demonstrated at once. The problems with your two remaining image files were that they should have used '.JPG' not '.jpg' in the filename. Mikenorton (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

At least, Mike, maybe the following pictures, I have recently loaded up, are helpful for visualizing the proportions at anticlines and synclines: Syncline cut off by a fault plane in normal direction.JPG Anticline cut off by a fault plane in normal direction.JPG Syncline cut off by a fault plane in reverse direction.JPG Anticline cut off by a fault plane in reverse direction.JPG But I think they are not appropriately for publishing and the shown effect of outcrop pattern changes maybe known for nearly everybody. Kind regards and bye. <Schuetzler 62>Schuetzler 62 (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)</Schuetzler 62>

This is a difficult thing to depict. The diagram gets all the main ideas across, and would be fine exactly as it to illustrate articles that refer to the subject, like the half-graben one. The front and back are extremely clear, as is the accommodation zone in the foreground. There is something a bit odd about the second accommodation zone further to the back. I wonder if the overlap of the footwalls in this zone is confusing? I would see the footwall and the hanging wall, the two sides of the fault, changing roles in this accommodation zone, so you would not see both faces at the same time, if that makes any sense. This is being way too picky - I think the diagram is excellent. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not too picky, the problem is that I'm trying to illustrate these overlapping transfer zones - one looks like a horst, the other like a graben - they're pretty common in rifts. I can't think how to improve it, so I'll add it to the half-graben and rift articles - thanks for the feedback. Mikenorton (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

In search of a possible April Fools DYK for next year I created Mugeary - you probably saw the odd little story about Curiosity. In a fit of what may prove to be over-enthusiasm I then created Category:Geological type localities of Scotland. Although there is a main article for the topic - Type locality (geology) - there doesn't appear to be a generic category. It is a bit of an oddity and I may take some advice about the category name before adding new names, but I thought you might be interested. Ben MacDui 17:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the articles that you had added to the topic, which is why I ended up adding something to the geology section of the Eday article, but I'm not sure that they are all type localities - the Eday Group doesn't seem to have a type locality for instance - many sequences or rock units are just named after a place, like the Moine Supergroup, named after a peat bog. Let me think about this some more. Mikenorton (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

OK and thanks. I realise that a problem with the cat is that quite often the location article fails to mention the issue and the geological article is a bit vague about the type locality itself. Categories don't need references as such but it would be good to get it right. Ben MacDui 08:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I see this is a competitive sport. Bish and Livingstone (82) note that with reference to theophrastite, "By submitting to the IMA a priority date was established for the Unst material, however, two months after that date another submission was received for pure Ni(OH)z from Greece, by Th. Marcopoulos and M. Economou. In the vote the Unst material and name were narrowly defeated in favour of the Greek Ni(OH)2, which is now known as theophrastite.". I added something about this to the article, which has the full ref. Ben MacDui 16:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Well at least it keeps the geoscientists off the streets. I have now realised that all stratigraphic units formally recognised by the BGS with stratotypes (be they type localities, sections or areas) are included in the information from the BGS lexicon of rock units, so I now know that the Eday Group has the island of Eday as its 'type area' [2]. Mikenorton (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Good find. I also came across this, which I would not necessarily call an RS but its an interesting pointer. It could eventually become a larger cat than I was expecting. Ben MacDui 08:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Once you start adding in the fossil type localities, you'll probably end up including most of Scotland in the category - there's the fish fossils and arthropods of the Old Red Sandstone, Rhynie for Rhynia amongst others, to name but a few. Mikenorton (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Intriguing. I don't spend a lot of time categorising but this seems worthy of a little more research. All the more surprising that no-one seems to have thought of doing so before in other geographical contexts - is Scotland especially fecund in this respect or are there now so many fossil finds that every valley in the western world can claim one? Ben MacDui 07:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will help by checking out the article and illustrations. I have an upcoming show (my art work), so my schedule is frantic until after the opening in early December, but I will try to read as I find time. Please ask specific questions on the article talk page, also, as I have it watch listed, and I am watching your edits. The article was surprisingly bad for a geology article on Wikipedia, but looking over other basin and structural articles, I see major issues in many articles. The volcanoes and national park FAs are usually so excellent, I was surprised by this article. Thanks for taking time to work on a major article that needs so much done to it. Also, you seem to have the background to be able to do the editing, although I may pick at some points, and I appreciate it when I see people with real knowledge taking time to improve Wikipedia articles. -Fjozk (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I work on rifts nearly every day of my professional life, but that brings with it several potential dangers; I may not give a balanced view of the topic, I may use way too much terminology (some of my contributions have been given 'too technical' tags) and I may not be clear enough, because I can't really stand back from the subject - that's why having someone else look through it is a good idea. Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You reversed the deletion someone made (for which they gave no justification), on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami Text: 2011 earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tōhoku (東北地方太平洋沖地震 Tōhoku-chihō Taiheiyō Oki Jishin?)

(Sorry, I don't know how to make a proper link to an *edit*.)

Anyway, I think the deletion is correct: the Nihongo template is there for glossing Japanese expressions, including for example the standard Japanese name for this earthquake disaster. But the bit in question is in no sense a Japanese expression. (Logically, if this were correct, every word in the article could be replaced by a Nihongo template with its Japanese translation!)

Just posting you a note first rather than seeming to start an edit war...

Imaginatorium (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, but the Japanese name of the earthquake appears to be 東北地方太平洋沖地震 (as in the ja wiki article) and the appropriate MOS page (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles#Using_Japanese_in_the_article_body) says that the Nihongo template should be used - whether the kanji is correct, I wouldn't know - is that the issue?

By the way, you can link to the edit by clicking on 'diff' in the history and just copying and pasting the url. Mikenorton (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)