I've taken a quick look at the above article. Two problems are obvious: 1. the article needs more direct references - many sections are unsourced and 2. much of the content appears to be either original research or synthesis of published sources. These problems need your immediate attention, please find references for the content that directly support what you have written and don't combine information from sources to support your interpretation. Sorry about the blunt comments, but it needs fixing.
I have little background in seismology - so not much help with the technical aspects there. However, the article is not about earthquakes - but about disaster response to earthquake damage. An important topic, but even further from my background in geology. Vsmith (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We have following sections:

1. The need for theoretically estimating human losses in real time
2. Pinpointing the epicenter
3. Getting the shaking right
4. The built environment is poorly known for some countries
5. Tracking how many people are where at what time
6. Simplifications are needed because the world is too large for details everywhere
7. State of the art
8. References

• Which ref can we use again to reference at end (as < ref name=??? />):
  • subsection 2.3 The depth is important, but uncertain in the top 50 km
  • section 7 State of the art
• for instance. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping pointing out what is missing. I added refs in the state of the art section.

The depth uncertainty is a text book wisdom, but I will come up with one or 2 refs regarding it. Need some time to hunt for them.MaxWyss (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss[reply]

Refs found and inserted. Assignment accomplishedMaxWyss (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss[reply]

(:D) I know, English Wiki is quite over the top on referencing, German Wiki is more reasonable ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have revisited this page that I have originally set up. I added a section on "magnitude" that was missing and I updated a few numbers and institutions. There is one thing that should be changed, but I do not how: The Title of the page. It has been changed and I do not know the mechanics of changing it further to be correct. The title should read: Real-time estimates of damage and casualties due to earthquakes worldwide.

(1) The word "casualties" has been introduced. This is ok, only then this word needs to be defined right up front. I have done that. No additional action required.

(2) The word "damage" is missing from the new title. A sizable section of the page has to do with earthquake damage estimates. And it is collapsing buildings that kill and injure people. Therefore the word "damage" has to appear in the title.

(3) Why should the word "worldwide" be deleted? I do not insist on this word, but it contains information important enough to be in the title.

(4) We have to add "real-time" or else readers think these are estimates made by engineers months after the earthquake.

I think the new title as proposed is an improvement because in the old title the word "loss" would also include economic losses which are not discussed. I am open for discussion re. the correct title, only the current title is not correct. PLEASE HELP TO CORRECT THE TITLE OF THIS PAGE. ThanksMaxWyss (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These comments should be moved to Talk:Earthquake casualty estimation, as they pertain to that article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Theoretically, there is a WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes)
  • It has a portal (Portal:Earthquakes)
  • It has participants (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Earthquakes#Participants), you are already here :)
    • The participants watch over the project, through:
    • Assessment: Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes/Assessment
    • Quality log: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Earthquakes articles by quality log
    • Changes log: [[1]], [2], for instance
    • And the personal watchlists
• More or less so --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You don't need to sign the edit summary ;) You need to sign only comments on the talk page ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Chris, very much indeed for helping me learn the ropes. However, I don't know what to do any more. Clicking the lead "Earthquakes" you gave me, I start reading at the top of the project and find an error in the second sentence: A seismometer is not the same as a seismograph. If I start correcting all errors I find, people will get mega annoyed with me.MaxWyss (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss[reply]

Stay cool, this is a mega database, you alone can't correct all errors. Just manage very well (in the beginning, and afterwards as well) how much time, nerves and spending do u want to invest on Wikipedia, please. I mean it hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly... The participants are very happy if somebody corrects the portal, most of the time. The main space is more in danger of edit warring. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how do I correct text on the portal? It seems I cannot edit it.MaxWyss (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss[reply]

I deleted seismograph ;) Seems to be a newer hypertext markup language. You are able to edit the intro by using the edit/link on the top right ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The intro box is a page in a page. The red bar with THE EARTHQUAKES PORTAL has "edit" on the far right with a link to [3] :) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok if I email u? If ur email is enabled. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's ok. email enabledMaxWyss (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bucharest Center suroundings enhanced.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I do not remember the rule about uploading figures. I put figures on the page 2016 Ecuador earthquake. I used the visual editor. All went smoothly. There was no hint of this not being allowed. Now I receive a message on Wikipediacommon that these figures are to be deleted. The response to my response is not in English. It is: This is regular housekeeping. Files are unused and created in not best format for that purpose. --EugeneZelenko (talk). Could you please tell me what I should do with these figures, in English, German or French.--MaxWyss (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that took a while to figure out. (You really should provide more specific information.) What you appear to be referring to is the "Notification about possible deletion" you received at your WikiCommons account regards several files you have uploaded:

• File:Fatalities 16Apr2016.jpg
• File:Fatalities Injured 16Apr2016.jpg
• File:Fatalities Injured NewsMedia16 April 2016 in Equador.pdf

Note: these are not the QLARM charts you used in the Equador article.

The deletion discussion is at c:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MaxWyss. What it comes down to is three things: these files are 1) not notable, 2) not used (linked from) any where, and 3) not in the best format. The latter refers to the use of the JPEG format, which is optimized for photographs and similar images, but is over-kill for simple diagrams such as these, for which PNG or SVG are more suitable. Note that your File:QLARM 2.jpg file has been tagged on the same grounds, and I expect File:Figure QLARM1.jpg will also be tagged soon. We can talk about image formats, but no need to rush on that, let's deal with the other stuff first.

As to these three images, I recommend letting deletion proceed. I can add a comment there to that effect if you wish. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, if you recommend letting deletion proceed then it is ok with me. Please add the comment as you offer.--MaxWyss (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added another figure to the page 2016 Ecuador earthquake but did not do it nicely. I do not know how to cull it and position it well.--MaxWyss (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that your link just above is in red. That indicates the specified link was not found, Or an error in the specification. Moral: [Preview]!

Thanks for telling me about "red". I previewed, but did not know the meaning of "red". I had miss typed a letter.--MaxWyss (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted that image's location; does that work better? (Getting images just right can be a bit challenging.)

And I added a comment to that deletion discussion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that looks a lot better. I increase the size of that map, so one could see the colors of the settlements. I would cull the sides of the frame at the left and the right because that makes only empty space, but I do not know how. The map should still be larger to more clearly see the settlements.--MaxWyss (talk) 07:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the text re. this figure I noticed that the link "30" seems not to work. I will take care of that.--MaxWyss (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be note 30. If you hover over the link you'll note the error message (in red): "Missing or empty title". If you look at that note in the edit window you can see that someone put the hyperlink into a {{cite web}} template. Which is a good start, but needs to go further, to include other fields needed for a proper citation. Such as a title.

The citations are not what I put there. There are 3 different ones. I responded to the one that was marked in red, but my change was somehow modified. I have to go now. Once I figure out how to insert the correct links, I will report back to you. Thanks always for your help.--MaxWyss (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put correct titles and links in the places of the old wrong ones, that is citations 29 till 32 on 2016 Ecuador earthquake. Only the access date on citation 31 did not work, although I checked the format of the other dates and formatted this one accordingly as I understand it.--MaxWyss (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note the error message closely: Check date values in: . It is referring to the |date= parameter, not |access-date=. They are different, and the value you have given 'date' is "own work". However, there is a deeper consideration there: what are you talking about? The QLARM program itself, as the text suggests? Or some casualty figures you generated with QLARM and published in a newsletter available at the website? Probably the latter. But the figures don't seem to be visible on the website itself, but in the newsletter. So cite that, using {{cite news}} (or even {{citation}}). You don't have to add "own work", because we assume that as the essence of authorship. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok--MaxWyss (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The white space in that image is inherent in the image itself. Crop it from the original, then upload the new version. I have moved that image and added a {{clear}} to keep the text from getting squeezed along the side. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving the figure. I did not see the white space that needed cropping in my file. Now I know that I must look at it with photoshop and crop it. The cropped immage is now on the webpage.--MaxWyss (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks better. By the way, I don't believe you have to specify height and width (e.g., "638x638px") unless you want to change the form factor of the image. If specify just one, software proportions both height and width. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John, I am back. I find that the figure and text on the page on the Ecuador earthquake of April 2016 which I had put there and you had helped me have disappeared. Can you help me to find out what happened? MaxWyss (talk) 17:55 30 January 2017

Hi Max! Glad to see you back. And I'll be glad to look into that for you. (But it might be several days.)

You might be interested in the latest RfC at Talk:Earthquake prediction. A new editor (JerryRussell) is all kinds of hot to get in some interesting material (especially if it challenges the mainstream), like VAN's "natural time analysis", and of course Freund, Pulinets, Heki, Heraud, and QuakeFinder. John Vidale has been good enough to give us some comments, but Jerry is resistant. I wouldn't bother going through all of the RfC, but you might comment on Questions #1, #2, and #3. And perhaps check the section near the end where he is trying to evade Susan Hough's "resoundingly debunked" comment. It's all a lot of trouble, but hopefully taking a strong stand on "alternative facts" at the level of Wikipedia will avoid a lot of trouble and work down the road. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking around, but I can't tell what you might be referring to; you'll need to give some specifics as to which figure, and what text, seem to have disappeared. (Is the figure by any chance one of the three mentioned above, now in red?) Note also that in the page history you can go back to any previous revision, and also identify which edit changed something, so that would be the best place to start looking into this. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Fatality reprt w time LAquila.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only see this message now. Please recommend a tag. I do not know which of a long list to uses to select. My work can be freely used, but not modified. Please tell me what tag I should use.Maxwyss (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain how to advise you. At WP:File_copyright_tags#Guideline it says that licensing "must permit both commercial reuse and derivative works. (Emphasis in the original.) And I believe "derivative works" means taking a copy and modifying it. But for that I would suggest using a Creative Commons license ("CC-BY-..."). Otherwise, I don't know. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will use this license. I have saved your advice in my instruction sheet so I will not forget it. I am learning how to add figures. You will notice I am now concentrating on estimates on fatalities due to earthquakes in real time.2601:645:502:A5D0:B408:474C:FE09:A9ED (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]