User talk:Mikenorton/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

VEI

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)

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)

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)

Speedy deletion nomination of 2010 Chile eethuquiker

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)

Highlands Controversy

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)

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)

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)

Removal of earthquakes in List of earthquakes in 2022

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)

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)

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)

Always precious

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

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

Typo

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)

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

Featured Article Save Award

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)

	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)

Chicxulub crater TFA nom

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)

A barnstar for you!

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

Earthquake edits 2.0

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)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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)

FAC Prep

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Why remove earthquakes that are "insignificant" although sources didn't specify if it's slight damage

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)

@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)

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)

Thanks

		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)

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)

Misinformation

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)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

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)

It's not proper English

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)

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)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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)

Wytch Farm

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)

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)

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)

ISC event links

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)

@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)

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

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

@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)

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)

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)

Health update

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Further health update

I've just had one of the two planned procedures that I'd been waiting for. I am officially fully recovered from the pulmonary embolism, so just a few other things to get sorted. I'm back editing as normal, in fact it's been a useful distraction over the last two months - I've not created this many articles in a few years. Mikenorton (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Eigg

I wonder if you could take a few minutes to look at the Geology section at Eigg? I have been attempting to improve the article and the current text sounds plausible but is largely unsourced. Ben MacDui 15:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ben MacDui: The text was added by User:Geopersona, which means that it should be absolutely fine and checks out using the BGS geology viewer. I'll take a look anyway and possibly add some more citations, if that looks necessary, and maybe think about adding a map, which should be as quick to produce as they ever are. Mikenorton (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ben MacDui: The map is done. Need to add a sentence about the Upper Cretaceous Strathaird Limestone Formation and some other minor additions and tweaks, which I will now do (well tomorrow, rather than now!). Mikenorton (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks once again. Much appreciated. Ben MacDui 09:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Obsidian composition

Thanks for restoring the text that I added earlier today in the Obsidian article about its chemical composition. Thanks also for adding a supporting source reference citation. I had been trying to add that specific source while my original edit was being reverted after only 3 minutes with accompanying unfounded accusation of my text being original research. (When I raised an objection to the reversion/OR accusation at the overzealous reverting editor's talk page, it too was reverted). Takes all sorts I suppose. GeoWriter (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. The OR accusation was laughable, it was hardly controversial and just a cn tag would have sufficed or they could have waited to see if a citation turned up over the next day or two. Too many people in a hurry. Mikenorton (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Isle of the Sea

Hi Mike - you will have noticed the little flurry of publicity about the geology of those lonely isles, the Garvellachs. This article and those for the individual isles were mostly tiny stubs and I am spending a bit of time adding to them in case of further such excitements. A kind editor added something about the geology and, if you haven't done so already, I'd be grateful if you would take a quick peek in case I am missing something important about global Sturtian glaciation or the islands' role in the matter. Cheers, Ben MacDui 10:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi MacDui, I will take a look. I can't help wondering if the results are a little "oversold", fascinating though they are. The use of Youngest Single Grains produces results consistent with the Sturtian but don't actually prove it, but that's just my take. Mikenorton (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks once again. I fear you are right - but then what is journalism without a little hyperbole? Ben MacDui 08:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a problem MacDui, I removed some of the hyperbole, but kept the one bit that seemed fair enough. I did remove the bits about the university - if anyone's interested in the "who", they can check out the journal paper or the BBC article. After going into the paper in more detail, I'm actually more convinced than I was. I'm a little unsure about the link to the Laurentian Mountains, as I suspect that the authors actually mean the Laurentian Shield, although that should really be the Canadian Shield according to our article. I'll take another look to see if it's clearer about exactly what they're referring to. Mikenorton (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Now linked to Laurentia after a re-read. Mikenorton (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that we need an article on the Port Askaig Tillite Formation. I'll work on that while I'm waiting for my latest "procedure" as they call operations these days. It will also give me something to concentrate on during my post-op recovery. Mikenorton (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Good luck with both! Ben MacDui 12:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!! Mikenorton (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Procedure successfully completed and new article available. Mikenorton (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Great stuff. It's on my watchlist and I shall be looking out for the Garbh Eileach Formation. Ben MacDui 14:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

That may take a while - there's only a single source, the Rugen et al. (2024) paper, which defines it as separate to the Lossit Limestone. Mikenorton (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The Lossit Limestone Formation, however ....... maybe a short paragraph or two in that article would cover it. Mikenorton (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

1908 Messina earthquake

Hello. I just wanted to contribute some confusion. While the death toll of the 1908 Messina earthquake is listed on the list of deadliest natural disasters and in it's own article as 75 to 82k, for some reason on the list of deadliest earthquakes and tsunami the death toll is listed as 123k. Should we fix this error? Nagito Komaeda the Second (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nagito Komaeda the Second: - Hi, I've just spent a lot of time trying to find out where that 123,000 figure came from, but have so far drawn a blank. It gets quite a few mentions, but not in sources that I would regard as particularly reliable for earthquake death tolls. Certainly the source used in the list of natural disasters by death toll#Tsunamis is probably not one that we should be using, if other better sources exist - it does list some sources, but I still can't work out where the 123,000 came from. I've changed the number and citation on the other page and used the CFTI5 Italian catalogue to support ~80,000. I'll need to change the citation in the list of tsunamis as well. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy. Mikenorton (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Now we just need to fix the death toll for the list of tsunamis and everything should be fine. Nagito Komaeda the Second (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hutton's Unconformity: is it "great"?

Skiing a little off-piste from our current chat on Talk:Great Unconformity...

...and now considering the description "great" possibly (or not) attaching to Hutton's Siccar Point unconformity...

I see that the article Hutton's Unconformity doesn't currently even mention any claim to being a "Great Unconformity". A short visit to Google also has difficulty providing WP:RS-quality links that associate the "great u." claim with it.

My u/grad geology was decades ago, and is now long rusted, so I'm way out of touch. Yours seems much more lively and current.

How extensive (or non-existent) is the literature that attaches the "great" label to Siccar Point? Can we (for the moment, at least) simply forget about any "great u." reference to Siccar Point?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Feline Hymnic: - It's rarely used for the Siccar Point outcrop, Archer et al. (2018) is one of the few. Mostly when it is used, it is generally as "the great unconformity at Siccar Point" rather than it being known as the "Great Unconformity". I don't think that it worth a mention in the "Hutton's Unconformity" article. Given that, I think that we can just remove it from the Great Unconformity article and keep that as the title. Maybe just put Hutton's Unconformity in the "See also" section. Mikenorton (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Mikenorton, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Mikenorton. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Access to geophysics publications?

Hi Mikenorton,

I'm trying to expand 1978 Tabas earthquake. I believe the following two studies would help with information:

Berberian, M., 1979- Tabas-e-Golshan (Iran) catastrophic earthquake of September 16, 1978; a preliminary field report. Disaster, 2(4), 207-219.

Berberian, M., 1979. Earthquake faulting and bedding thrust associated with the Tabas-e-Golshan (Iran) earthquake of September 16, 1978. Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 69(6), 1861-1887.

I can't find any free PDFs of those two studies. If you have access to those two studies, could you verify the information in this old version of the article? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1978_Tabas_earthquake&oldid=521076042 (edit made by Berberian himself) Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

There's a copy of the second article at this url from this google scholar search. I can't find anything for the first, although the abstract is pretty informative - I'll take a look at the link that you gave. Mikenorton (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Dora has found the first article on Sci-Hub. No need to verify the information now, I can probably do it myself. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Reversion of Dolomite (rock)

Hi Mikenorton. User:SafariScribe recommended the inclusion of the lemma in Dolomite (rock), which I have done accordingly. (South) Africa is substantially underrepresented in Wikipedia's lemmas, and dolomite failure is one of many problems the country faces. Many areas of the country are uninhabitable because of sinkholes, and highways are often closed because of sinkhole damage. So I think the extra part is of considerable interest to people in Africa who live in areas prone to sinkholes (called dolomitic failure here). Please return to my version, taking into account the above reasons, by specifically addressing the underrepresentation of African interests in Wikipedia, which seem to be not so important when having grown up in a developped country C.wolke (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Based on your suggestion I created a new article and I would be glad, if you could review it. I will send it for review in some minutes. The new title, because of the redirections, is now: Draft:Dolomite_rock_failure_in_South_Africa#Dolomite_rock_failure_in_South_Africa C.wolke (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)