Hi, Geology of Nepal got complicated terms and copyvio problems. Would u like to make a 2¢ contribution? The article has a very nice collection of references. I'm going to read Rowley (1996), Guillot (1999), Upreti (1999), Catlos (2000) and DeCelles et al. (2001). But I'm not a structural geologist. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chris, on holiday in Turkey at the moment, not much chance do anything substantial until I get back - will have a look then. Remind me if I seem to have forgotten. Mikenorton (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thx, don't get sunburnt :o) Enjoy ur holidays :) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Thank you for tidying up the geological aspects of the Elbe Sandstone Mountains. I've recently created the portal for this area at {P:ERM]] and am busy translating the articles not already available. I'm no expert on geology and wondered if you could cast your eye, when you have time, on those with a geological section, especially at present: Lusatian Fault, Karsdorf Fault, Kuhstall, Cottaer Spitzberg, Quirl and Tyssaer Wände. Many thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I looked at the Elbe Sandstone Mountains article following on from the Teufelsturm (Saxon Switzerland) article, which didn't mention the rock type - I could tell it was sandstone from the image and became intrigued. Mikenorton (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Mike - The Goethite article has it discovered in Minnesota 1806. I think this is garbled; one of the sites cited seems to confirm but the other has it from the Hollertzug Mine in Germany, same date, which seems a lot more plausible. Do you have a better source? Also I presume the date refers to the first sample that was formally described in the literature, since the substance has been known since ancient times; should this be spelled out? I lack the expertise. Dankarl (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not Mike, but... Appears that Webmineral has it as Minnesota, but adds a link to Mindat location data which plainly states Germany. Taking a look at Dana’s system of mineralogy 1944, the early references are to German language articles and locations - although the names used were variable. Also the Mesabi Range was rather unknown in 1806. Changed it w/ Mindat as ref. Vsmith (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

See great detective solve problem on talk:goethite :) Vsmith (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

On 8 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article AD 62 Pompeii earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Roman philosopher Seneca the Younger attributed the deaths of 600 sheep in the AD 62 Pompeii earthquake to the effects of poisonous gases? 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) 00:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike,

Sorry I didn't read your post properly - when you said you were under construction for an article on 1911 Sarez earthquake, I created a stub earlier - please go ahead and improve it :) EdwardLane (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, it's in one of my sandboxes - I'll just merge the content, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow you've done a grand job on that article - I was just shocked that it didn't have a page at all and that the various conected pages all seemed inconsistant. I've never been involved in a DYK nomination beofre, but I'll try to field any questions. Have a fabulous time in Iceland - I envy you - oh and take some nice photos of various volcanoes - a fair number could do with decent images for wikipedia ;) EdwardLane (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not sure that the weather's going to be all that special, and we're not going to the active volcanic area but we will be seeing the geysers and the west coast area.

There are many earthquakes that lack articles on Wikipedia, although I try to add them when I come across them - there are also many stubs with little content, so I won't run out of tasks just yet. Mikenorton (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

On 21 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1911 Sarez earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1911 Sarez earthquake triggered a huge landslide, forming the tallest dam in the world? 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this. However, please remember to check the IP's talkpage. In this case, it was a repeat vandal schoolip. These are routinely reblocked when they vandalize. Just flag it at wp:AIV and it gets handled quickly. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I just looked at the contributions for that IP and saw only the two recent edits - I often don't warn for what looks like an isolated incident, I should have looked into that one more closely. Mikenorton (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, not surprisingly the technical language makes for problems when everybody else (non geologist) tries to read it. Specifically, could you give me a brief indication of the significance of the Bouguer anomaly and its 20m Gal contour? --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why it needs a non-specialist to look at these things, it's surprisingly difficult to stand outside your own knowledge. In this case the granite bodies are lower in density than the rock into which they intrude and the bouguer anomaly is a measure of differences from the average after removing the effects of topography, so negative anomaly roughly equals granite extent. The 20 mGal contour is just the most convenient one to demonstrate this extent on a map. I'll add more to the file description of the map and some more to the text - let me know if I succeed or not. Feedback like this is really important, so thank you. Mikenorton (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do get some idea but other readers will perhaps find it more difficult. What the article needs is an experienced editor who can work with you to introduce more readily accessible accounts of the topic as well as the essential technical account. The time and space aspects of geology tend to confuse just about everybody except real experts and then there are readers who may have a lower level of comprehension of English. However volcanoes are much in the news these days so your knowledge is well worth having. Let me know what you think about the idea.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I welcome the suggestion, although I commiserate with whoever takes on the job :-), I have at least 125 other offences to be taken into consideration. Mikenorton (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I did add the alt text though without the |alt= prefix. I'm sorry if that was incorrect. Harrison49 (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I didn't know that. When I've added the text before in the way I've done it's shown up as desired. Harrison49 (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes you do not think on the obvious. I know of the iron and fluorine sinks in seawater, but that the soluble potassium could have a sink was not coming to my mind! I will try to find something! Thanks! --Stone (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, how do you think about the idea of adding a navibox of Japan Trench magathrust eqs or Japan Trench eqs just like the Sumatra one? Qrfqr (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, the same could also be done for the Nankai megathrust earthquakes, which I have been slowly adding articles to (the 1605 Keichō Nankaido earthquake is next on my list). However, I'm not offering as I know nothing about creating templates. By the way, I realise that I've created some duplication between the geology and earthquake sections of the 1994 article - I will sort that out eventually. Mikenorton (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I did the Japan Trench one but not the Nankai one yet, cuz not sure if you want to list Nankai, Tonankai, Tokai separately or together. If the latter, another thing is that it seems like "Nankai Tonankai Tokai megathrust eqs" was not commonly used, so I'm not sure what the appropriate title would be. Qrfqr (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Logically they should be Nankai Trough megathrust earthquakes - using the name of the trench. Mikenorton (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Qrfqr (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added a few more to the template. There are signs that recent scientific papers are moving towards describing the plate interface associated with the Nankai Trough as the 'Nankai Megathrust' so eventually we may end up with an article on 'Nankai Megathrust earthquakes' and a 'Nankai Megathrust earthquakes' template. Mikenorton (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping updated on what was going on. I think Ocaasi did a fantastic job writing the article, I just helped with some of the little missing parts that only some Egyptian (Like myself) know. Hope you enjoyed the article :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

On 19 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1994 Offshore Sanriku earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1994 Offshore Sanriku earthquake is considered an "ultra-slow" earthquake, as slip continued for more than a year afterwards? 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) 00:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your tsunami file for Unzen tsunami. Please make another for 1771 Great Yaeyama Tsunami. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I presume that you mean the infobox when you say 'file', I've done that - it's not that satisfactory because it's right at the edge of the location map. There's a lot of information on the tsunami here and here and I recall looking at some papers published on this event - I meant to expand the article but never got around to it. Mikenorton (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am not a specialist, but I met several tsunami warning signals when I was in Miyakojima. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I see you rated some of my articles "start" class, that is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources. I think most of them, while requiring cleanup since I'm not a native english speaker, are quite complete, and I usually use quite a few sources. Do you really think there is a lack in completeness and references? --Jollyroger (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Those rating were just quick assessments, something to put up there with the banners rather than leaving the class blank, I didn't spend long over it so please don't feel that I'm calling the quality of your work into question. They may well justify 'C' class, or possibly even 'B', but that would take some time to decide on, which I don't have right now. Thanks for doing those articles, particularly the 1570 Ferrara earthquake, which I had tried to construct a few months ago but found that there were insufficient English language sources for me to produce anything more than a stub. Mikenorton (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added a 'Geology' section to the 1570 Ferrara earthquake article although the reference that I've used doesn't fit particularly well with the following section that says "geologically quite stable since the Messinian". I'm reassessing your three articles on the basis of the ratings others have given to my various earthquake articles, so that I can better understand the system. Mikenorton (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please mind that "quite stable" could mean that no cataclisms happens on a yearly basis :-). Italy got his fair share of destructive quakes, and many parts of its territory are considered high seismicity zones.--Jollyroger (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added geology sections to the other two articles and reassessed them all as 'C' - the only thing that had been missing in terms of completeness was the geology in my view. Mikenorton (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Since I'm not used to geological jargon, could you give an overall check to the whole articles? I'm writing about Italian quakes only because I have plenty of sources in Italian, but I am no expert... --Jollyroger (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

this may need a Geology paragraph --Jollyroger (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Other sources list no victims for the Cansiglio earthquake... Is the estimate of 19 casualties from the Guidoboni et al. work? --Jollyroger (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's in the section called 'Effects in the social context' in the details for that earthquake. If you use that website, zoom in on the particular area, then use the rectangle information select tool, which will bring up all the earthquakes and just choose the 'text' icon for the 1936 event and look for the relevant section in the 'Comments' column. 19 deaths is also given in the IISEE catalogue entry for this earthquake ([1] - choose search and enter 1936 and Italy) . Mikenorton (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI --Jollyroger (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at that when I get back from Sweden. Mikenorton (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I just created this template {{Template talk:Did you know/El Hierro}} after updating the El Hierro page slightly. I've never actively started a DYK thread, but the hook looked like it might generate interest. I remember you were particularly good with your expansion of the Sarez quake article (way beyond my feeble efforts) - I wondered whether to just scrap the idea of getting it on DYK or if there is enough info out there to either expand that section of the article enough, I thought the current earthquake swarm might be of interest too. How was your holiday in Iceland btw? EdwardLane (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The holiday was amazing, the weather was quite sunny but really cold at times (near zero combined with gale force northerlies). Haven't had time to upload any pictures yet, real life being quite busy at the moment. I'm off on another shortish break to Sweden to visit friends/relatives so won't be able to contribute for the next 10/11 days. I'll take a look at the article, but probably won't have much time to spend on it, in fact I have a double article nomination at DYK at the moment (1605 Keichō Nankaidō earthquake, Tsunami earthquake) that hasn't been reviewed yet - I should have remembered that it can take more than a week sometimes (btw I'm not asking you to review it as that wouldn't be appropriate - there's enough things going on at DYK at the moment, see the talk page, or better not if you value your sanity). Mikenorton (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad iceland was good if cold, enjoy Sweden and beware the rotten herring food stuff (I'm told it's very smelly).EdwardLane (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I took a look, the expansion needs to be 5x for the whole article, which would be an impossible challenge I think. After your edit it was expanded just 1.2x - sorry. Mikenorton (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I knew it was too small as an expansion of the main article in it's own right but the entire article could expand fairly easily I think - I'll give it a bit of a go, I should be able to check the sources on the spanish site and use those as a basis for that. Anyway not terribly worried, just thought I'd see whether you had any spare time. You have a good trip.

EdwardLane (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Good luck, I've always viewed DYK just as an extra stimulus to create or expand stuff, so don't worry if you don't get a big enough expansion - the article will be the better for it. Mikenorton (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've viewed DYK and ITN as a way to get others involved in the article in order to improve it beyond my skillset/knowledge. I only just discovered El Hierro existed because of the earthquake swarm, and then I found out it had created a gigantic tsunami. I was a bit shocked that there wasn't even a mention of it on wikipedia. But yes the stimulus is there EdwardLane (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please help with the infobox for 1889 Kumamoto earthquake. Thank you in advance. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but I won't have time until this evening. Mikenorton (talk) 07:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

		The Earthquakes Barnstar
		Just wanted to recognize the awesome contributions to the 2011 Va earthquake article. Well done! Wikipelli Talk 13:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Wikipelli, I have reason to be hopeful that Chuck Bailey's blog will be updated over the next few days, so then we'll have more information to work on regarding the specifics. Mikenorton (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding back the bull's eye map. I had just found the diff and was going to do it myself but saw you had beat me to it. I expect you'll be creating an article on the Spotsylvania fault? (I won't move it to change the caps if you chose Spotsylvania Fault.  :) μηδείς (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to find stuff about that fault but I'm a bit lacking good sources at the moment. The focal mechanism suggests movement on a 30 degree dipping thrust fault (my OR, but it will be confirmed eventually), consistent with the Spotsylvania fault as I understand it. I don't have the time at the moment to dig too far into this as the day job is pretty demanding at the moment. If you want to go ahead, then I'll take a look through it once you're done. Mikenorton (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise at all, but will look into it and tell you if I find enough to create a stub. μηδείς (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Mike, sorry I hadn't responded in a while, but I was blocked from editing due to my administratively apparent underlying evil nature. I did look into the Spotsylvania fault at both jstor and google books, but wasn't able to find anything both accessible and relevant upon which to create an article on the Spotsylvania fault. That doesn't mean the information doesn't exist, just that I can't personally find it. Thanks for your help. μηδείς (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you back Medeis, as it turns out the Spotsylvania fault was not the one responsible for the earthquake, so it's probably not going to get an article any time soon. Mikenorton (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I would like to appreciate another infobox concerning 1958 Lituya Bay megatsunami. Thank you in advance. --Ichiro Kikuchi (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. I've added the earthquake infobox, although note that the coords given and the bullseye graphic are for the earthquake epicenter and not the site of the tsunami, which was more than 70 km away. I'll look at adding a bit more about the earthquake itself as it's almost certainly better to put it there rather than creating a separate earthquake article. Mikenorton (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Warm regards, Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 20:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I've decided to switch. Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 22:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, just wondering why you erased my addition to the Black Rock article of a book where the black rock is mentioned? If I did something wrong, I apologize and maybe you could tell me what I did wrong, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pureharp35 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, particularly the section titled 'Content'. The book that you referred to is unlikely to add to the knowledge of anybody wishing to find out more about the Black Stone, so it shouldn't be added. It was unsourced and was likely to be removed for that reason and also the section you added didn't have a title in WP:MOS style and it was added to the wrong part of the page. Sorry to be discouraging, but not everything can be added to articles - you could try expanding the article on the book Sacred Stone, as it doesn't even mention the Black Stone at the moment and it could do with some sources adding. Mikenorton (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of 526 Antioch 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! --Cúchullain ^t/c 16:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have added a little geological information to this. Could you have a look to see if it it needs improving.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've changed quite a bit, this is one of those areas where the literature before about 1980 is now hopelessly outdated, which is why I've removed your Stubblefield and Dewey refs - we're much better now at differentiating between tectonic and sedimentary breccias. Mikenorton (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not surprised it needed upgrading in the light of later research. It certainly needed a better description than I could do. Thank you.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The map shows "spillite" (i.e. spilite) but I wonder where this is now described and whether this could be clarified.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this new article Victuallers (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this new article Victuallers (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your excellent expansion of Domus Aurea (Antioch). ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, it means a great deal receiving it from a mastermind such as yourself. Mikenorton (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The map shows "spillite" (i.e. spilite) but I wonder where this is now described and whether this could be clarified.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, I wasn't trying to ignore you. Spilites are essentially basalts that have been altered by sodium metasomatism such that they contain for instance albite rather than their normal labradorite. It is however a term that has fallen out of use pretty much, with the more general 'metabasalt' or 'metabasite' being used these days. Perhaps I could add in something to the bit on 'in place' volcanics that they used to be described as spilites. I'll take a look. Mikenorton (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that would help: it shows that the map is too simple to convey much about the Meneage geology but there may not be a better one. The author of that map does not contribute much to WP Cornwall now. Best wishes.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sentences on the metamorphism, which explains about them being considered spilites originally. The map is fine for the Lizard, but perhaps a separate one for the Meneage would be good. I'll see if I can come up with one. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. I think I may have misunderstood the idea of categories somehow. I think it would be a good idea if on this page (and any similar ones), you could have a “collapsable/collapsed” listing, such as is used for many footballers with respect to their international goals. (See e.g. “Mixu Paatelainen”, for whom I’ve done all the statistics.) Then you would not have to go to a separate page, but just click on the “show/hide” button. I think it would be handy thing to have, and it would also prevent misunderstandings of this kind that I seem to have had, on more than one occasion. Apanuggpak (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your message. I noticed you’re a geologist. If you look at the List of earthquakes in Peru, you’ll see that I’ve added a few there. Do you think they are OK (even if for most the data is n/a)? Based on the magnitudes I’ve found for them, they should be major quakes. And the 1746 Lima-Callao earthquake, I wrote an article on it, with some very rare contents from a local library of Russian books. I’ve asked a geologist friend of mine to look at it before I actually create the article. But do you think it’s another megathurst one? And do you think the title would be OK? Or should the title be changed somehow before creating the article? Apanuggpak (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply to you here if that's OK, I keep forgetting what I've said if the conversation is in two places. It's very likely to be another megathrust event, based on the tsunami that destroyed Callao, although that's not absolute proof it does suggest an epicenter underwater and therefore most likely on the plate interface (or megathrust). Also confirmed by this source. As to the title it sounds OK, unless there's an alternative that turns up in a lot of sources, after a quick look '1746 Lima earthquake' or similar is most common. I would be very happy to look at your article, whenever you bring it online. I created the 1687 Peru earthquake article and jointly created the 1868 Arica earthquake, so I'm familiar with some of the sources of information that are available. Mikenorton (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Very happy to hear that! Apanuggpak (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I talked to my geologist friend today. He said this 1746 quake is so well known that it should be a textbook example in geology. However, he’s a bit busy with other things, so if it’s OK, I’d like to ask you to look at the “Tectonic setting” section. It’s in my personal sandbox, which you’ll find in my contributions. If this is possible, it would speed things up, as my friend would then only have check the Russian to English translation that I did. Apanuggpak (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look. My most recent earthquake articles were the 115 Antioch earthquake and 893 Dvin earthquake, one of which lays claim to be in the top 10 most destructive historic events and the other which spawned the 893 Ardabil earthquake, which never actually happened, even though its in the USGS top 10. There's still lots to do on earthquakes on Wikpedia. Mikenorton (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I finally created the article, but I thought maybe it would be best if you added you contribution under your own name; perhaps that would lend the bit a bit more credibility; also it would show your authorship on that bit. Perhaps you could also see if everything else is OK. I’m not sure the references actually go to the right place; I could not find the magnitude where I thought it had been. But I guess these things can be corrected over time by people who have more expertise than I do. But anyway, it would be nice to know what you think of the quote from Khlebnikov. Apanuggpak (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I made some changes and I will expand it more with the sources that I've found. I don't think that the last section on magnitude estimation should stay, as the Doorbath et al. 1990 ref explains the methodology - using both damage reports and modelling of tsunami heights. The Khlebnikov quote is good. I intend to nominate this at WP:DYK in the next few days, I'll consult with you over the 'hook'. Mikenorton (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Wow, a WP:DYK! I wish I had more stuff like Khlebnikov… But I guess I should write an article on the man himself! Apanuggpak (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, what you’ve done looks really good! Concerning the DYK, I left my suggestions to my talk page; also, I notice we didn’t have a reference to the article List of earthquakes in Peru, so I thought it would be good to have it in a new “See also” section. Apanuggpak (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again! I added a few things from one of your sources, I hope it went OK. But the same source indicates that one writer had the death toll at 18,000. What to think of this? Apanuggpak (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've moved things around some and removed the duplicated aftershocks bit (although I've incorporate the 200 in 24 hrs part). I've rewritten a couple of sections because they were too close to the original source. DYK has recently become more careful over problems with too close paraphrasing of sources. Although NGDC is a federal government source, the information about individual earthquakes are quotes from copyrighted sources, so we either present them in quotes or rewrite them completely. The dividing line is a fine one between potential copyright violation on the one hand and possible original research or synthesis on the other but it's something that all contributors to Wikipedia need to work towards. I hope that you don't mind me raising this. The 18,000 source may be one of those that includes the effects of the subsequent epidemics, so probably best to leave it out. I also added two more sources on the reconstruction and the tsunami effects at Pisco. Hopefully the nomination will get reviewed before too long, but the backlog is rather big at the moment. Mikenorton (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, it seems I just missed the front page… I hadn’t logged in for a few pages. Didn’t know the contents change 3 times a day. Quite something for me, in any case. But anyway, the forgotten item (by me) in this discussion: casualties. The 18,000 or 29,000 figure had been in the article List of earthquakes in Peru, which I now changed to ca. 6,000. I hope you will keep up the good work on earthquakes, and should you do more articles on Peru, for example, please check the article mentioned above to see that it is in line with the main article on whichever quake is concerned. There may be a couple of quakes in Alaska a couple of centuries ago on which I have material in my bookshelf, and I hope we can co-operate some more if I find time to write on them. Apanuggpak (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be very happy to collaborate on other earthquake articles - it looks like there are a lot of Peru earthquakes that still need an article, but I work on them as and when I come across them. Mikenorton (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sjense2 (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

As we try to bring back to life, those who worked so hard in their fields many years ago, thank you for your citation. Kanatonian (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I was trying to keep close to the original hook, so went looking for more details - it will be up to an admin as to what actually goes on the main page, Kevin and I can only propose. Mikenorton (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, whether it goes in the main page or not is not that important but what is important is that process usually leads to a better article . After I am done with these articles, no one really touches them for years only an occasional vandalism here and there or a Bot doing its work once a while. The article about Peter Pervival will stay static once I move onto another one:( Kanatonian (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your work on cutting down the backlog of DYK nominations, particularly those over two weeks: your copy-edits to help improve the articles, and you display diligence, scrutiny and precision with each review. Nice work! Harrias talk 18:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

But Ben, you're going at twice my speed - I hope that someone gives you one! Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I got some flowers, and am I really twice your speed, or half your diligence?! Harrias ^talk 18:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Orlady (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC) 00:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining how it came up with that result - I couldn't see it myself. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, sometimes it's really hard to work out which versions it's using for its calculation. Mikenorton (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The author of the article Reward dependence has responded about the copyvio issues on his DYK nomination page. I do not intend to play any further part in the discussion and will leave it to you/others who know more about such things. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

PS I am now making use of the Duplicate Detector in other DYK reviews.

I've given the nomination the go ahead now - all looks fine, so it'll be my neck on the block if I've failed to spot anything. As to knowing more. I'm only just ahead of you, as I only started being really thorough in this part of DYK reviewing a few months ago, but I still find some examples that I just can't decide on. It's definitely not easy. Mikenorton (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you for helping me with this article. I did remove the bolding and italicized very minimally. I also left the capitalizations in since those diagnostic terms are usually capitalized. Vishakavijayakumar (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Orlady (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC) 16:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For expanding 1693 Sicily earthquake, an article originally created by myself. Great job! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Blofeld, much of your original text can still be found in the lead - it's always easier to build on good foundations. Mikenorton (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

...for reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Veterans Fast for Life! I am happy you found the hooks interesting. --Edcolins (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, it was an interesting read all round. Mikenorton (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Labeling was unseeable iside for work reference an possible talk about also after simply moved ! In ervery case not reason for deleting all and destroying with new infos away also for changes ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kay Uwe Böhm (talk • contribs) 16:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Stopp your nonsense editing first after my older editing and talk before deleting also simply new content also proofing right with references inside and if you have all admistrators before on your side tell me who look like not Areva Help edit with good reference side only question what was a catastrophe under definitions with clear 0 deaths until now and what expected in future much to less also damages but clear a catastrope 9.0 quake one of the highest in history world also with less deaths compared with Haiti quake 7.1 230000 deaths because of precautions for buildings also atomic plants only up tp 8.0 secured but holded, not 14m absolute massive destructive killing tsunami main at Fukushima with 300 000 homeless and only oldest plant of Tepco 10m high doors broken on higher than expected tsuanami destroying plant and killing workers with only 3.12m tsunami wall asked by governement 5.7m build instead fully closed like older german plants+EPR. Also long time less or no nuclear deaths to be seen by much addings later also of "teatalk"... ! Many news arround that also areas around not long time evacuated after levels down back at 2012 ! 95.88.170.214 (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your text addings after are very bad long fomulations and much missed/wrong after you and others changed see also inside comments "likly" for quake+tsunami from anti atom instead full referenced Kay Uwe Böhm (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You did left new rentry "exactly values in tables later" and all the tables 2 about amounts and one for water purification, 2 charts showing decrease in water/air, one picture where tsunami hit, corerection for ankles that not confirmed and before values as high as chernobyl new intial values and about one tenth. Missing now that before wrong information and right at the beginning total death amount also for quake+tsunami and explanation why called catastrophe under governmet definition without deaths and this is not a german lead question with refernece on definition german Wikipedia if not in english Wikipedia but to be transfered like all tables and charts and pictures before. I don`saw now "but complex" nonsense citation at beginning like wrong ankles info. Also missing information about tsunami wall 3.12m asked 5.7m build reference Spektrum Wissenschaften Artikel and not only mSv values for ankles instead 2-3Sv 2000-6000mSv before without "not confirmed" and no explanation what 250mSv means just +1% cancer risk not cancer just some workers. Always another one just deleteting instead adding Spektrum Reference article... for download already talked. Information about situation was wrong there ? Also informing about mass of wrong information was going around proofed by Wikipedia itself german and english with extra section in german wikipedia also english W. to be opend also by yourself ? 95.88.168.248 (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I don't understand half of what you're saying. You (and others?) added material to the lead of an article that was very difficult to understand so it was removed - that's normal practice. If it's not easily understood it has to go, because it's helping nobody. Provide text that is easily understandable to the average English reader and then we can discuss it, until then it stays out. Mikenorton (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Entry from Gautier lebon added later at later place and longer not bad mistake not only quake mainly tsunami killed some workers some found 3 weeks later in turbine house and some collapsing... significant not explained. "There were no deaths or serious injuries due to direct radiation exposures, but a few of the plant's workers were severly injured or killed by the disaster conditions resulting from the earthquake. At least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significant radiation doses. Future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have been estimated at between 100 and 1000 (much less than the approximately 20,000 people killed directly by the earthquake and tsunami). However the radiation exposure resulting from the accident for most people living in Fukushima is so small compared to background radiation that it may be impossible to find statistically significant evidence of increases in cancer. But fear of ionizing radiation could have long-term psychological effects on a large portion of the population in the contaminated areas." 95.88.168.248 (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This addition to the lead is a reasonable attempt at summarising the section on casualties - which is all the lead is supposed to contain, a summary of the article. Mikenorton (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to report an edit-war on the wiki on the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, some German Kay_Uwe_Böhm is performing quite some self-promotion, and the edits are not very acceptable.... what can be done about this, I do not have the time to spent a lot of time on this vandalism 1947enkidu (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Kay Uwe Böhm is also trolling other contributors directly on their talk pages using IP addresses from Bremen in Germany. His behaviour is unacceptable. Shinkolobwe (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I've already warned that editor that they are in danger of being blocked for edit warring. I suggest someone takes this to the appropriate notice board. It's late here and I won't do anything about it tonight, but I will act if no else has, tomorrow morning. Mikenorton (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings of the season to you!

I know you review many articles for DYK, but your nomination of Whiteschist did not mention any particular one by name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And greetings to in return.

Ah yes, I've been remiss on that, my excuse being that real life at the moment makes it difficult to set aside the necessary block of time to carry out a review, although if needs be, I'll probably have to rely on one of my past reviews [2] (one unused), [3], [4] & [5] which should cover Whiteschist and 1932 Jalisco earthquake. I will anyway do some more reviews when I get the opportunity - I have no problem if you want to wait until I have done a new review. Mikenorton (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The article 2011 Virginia earthquake has been listed as a Good Article Nominee. The review page of the article can be found here. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I have re-reviewed the article here and placed it on hold. There is just one reference left to be fixed and the whole thing passes. It's just a reference that, according to Checklinks, is about to expire. Once that is fixed, I will pass the article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There are two dead links that just popped up since my last check on Checklinks. You can find them at the bottom. Damn. :( I would try not to go with Google News or the AP, as they replace their links often. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

OK they're fixed along with one more that I missed on my previous check. Can we get it passed now, before another one falls over? Mikenorton (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I haven't been feeling my best. I checked everything over and it is now passed and promoted! :) Congrats on your hard work! I did leave a small note as to your next step (if you wish to take it) with the article at the far bottom of Talk:2011 Virginia earthquake/GA2. Again, great job! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Neutralhomer, I was beginning to think that there were so many refs that we would never get a version where they all worked at the same time. I won't be taking this to FA as I'm concentrating on writing missing earthquake articles and expanding earthquake stubs, but if someone else does, I'll join in the 'fun'. Mikenorton (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes it is tricky with all the refs, but normally two tries gets all the references current. Glad I can help. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I sent you this message to let you know that the 2011 Virginia earthquake article is currently undergoing a Peer Review you may find the review here. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I'll respond there regarding the geology section when I have a few minutes. Mikenorton (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm planning to send Hawaii hotspot of to FAC again. Heh, again. Anyway, I need to get the thing ship-shape, and first step is getting it right content-wise, which is why it failed its third nom two years ago. So, basically, I'd appreciate an expert's help here =). Thanks, ResMar 04:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh and here's the PR. ResMar 04:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a couple questions regarding your dyk nom. Chris857 (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike. Since you participated in a previous discussion regarding reuse of PD text in DYK submissions, you may be interested in contributing to a recent discussion on the same topic, here, or the proposal which follows it. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out Gatoclass, I've added a comment. Mikenorton (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mike... I trust your knowledge of earthquakes and such and wonder if you could take a moment to check me on my note here. Obviously, data for quakes over 100 years ago is going to be muddled somewhat (I would think), but I'm no longer sure that an estimate of 5.9 for the 1897 quake is reliable. Thanks for your time! Wikipelli ^Talk 17:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I was working on it when I saw your note here - will answer there. Mikenorton (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Dawnseeker2000 21:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I had to delete almost all of this temporary draft today. I left a detailed explanation on the author's talk page [6] with some tips on how to proceed. I saw your note there offerring to help him/her. If you can, that would be great! An experienced editor is very much needed on the re-write and I simply don't have the time to devote to it. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I found out that you undid my revision. I think the lead section of the page does not summarise its contents suitably and the page is also lacking examples. Please leave comments.Sourodeep25 (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sourodeep25, I undid your change mainly because there was no edit summary. Also for such a short article we don't normally stick too strictly to the requirements for a lead section. The problem with 'fold mountain' as a term is that it has fallen almost completely out of use in geological literature, although it still persists in Physical Geography literature to some extent. It's pretty easy to find sources that say that the Himalayas are an example of a fold mountain, but geologists no longer think of such mountain belts in those terms because we know that the dominant processes involve mainly thrusting and that folding is a secondary process. Unfortunately I have been unable to find a source that explains this - one of those occasions that it is no great advantage to be an 'expert' on Wikipedia. I am still looking for relevant sources, but most of them are relatively old (more than 25 years) and none of them are written by structural geologists - my two text books on structural geology don't mention the term (from the late 60s and early 70s). There are some descriptions of the Zagros 'simply folded belt' as fold mountains, so I should at least add a source for that. Mikenorton (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on the article. I am a perfectionist myself, but on topics I don't know anything about I'm just quoting or summarising blind what I read. If you spot anything else you think I've misunderstood, don't hesitate to highlight. Best wishes from London. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll keep an eye on it (also from London). Mikenorton (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Came across this small article yesterday. There are a few sources available for this one. Before I touched it the article was at 578 characters and 95 words. I don't have a hook in mind (yet). Could be good for a DYK. There seems to be extraordinary claims about large landslides in the area. Dawnseeker2000 16:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see what I can come up with. Mikenorton (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've found a nice source covering the reactions of the inhabitants of New France at the time - it's by a British historian, but it's in french - here. I've made a translation, but you may be able to read the original french, otherwise I can e-mail you the translation if you want (it's more or less understandable I think - thanks to google translate + my school french). There's also some good stuff about the evidence for large landslides in the Saguenay Fjord and alternative views about the epicentre. Mikenorton (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, it would be good to see the translation. Google is great but there can be bits that are broken english especially if it's technical. I got a start on adding to the article, but then paused, and thought that maybe it's not that significant of an event. I started realizing that the landslides were the dominant topic. But, I suppose it's worth making something out of it. A pretty recent report from last year was done. Thanks, I'll check in by email. Dawnseeker2000 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

On its way to you now. There are still a few short sections where I didn't quite get the meaning, but those will be obvious. Mikenorton (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reorganized this one a bit tonight. Changed a subheading, added the new translated reference, and (gasp) merged some content I'd written into the technical portion you added. I hesitated, mainly because I didn't want there to be anything that might be contradictory or that didn't read well. If you find that to be true, please trim, organize, or remove the parts that lack continuity.

And it's up to size now but still looking for a hook. Dawnseeker2000 04:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take another look at it tonight, probably expanding on the landslides and then see what hooks there might be, but off to work right now. Mikenorton (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Would be great to somehow weave the impact crater into a hook, and my other thought was to fall back on the missionaries as a source of records on the earthquake. Dawnseeker2000 16:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about getting the impact crater in there. Although we haven't added an aftermath section yet, I think that something on the (rather short-lived) return of religious fervour would be good. Mikenorton (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've added a short 'Aftermath' section. There are a lot of possible hooks, but I'll start by suggesting

... that missionaries to the colony of New France welcomed the 1663 Charlevoix earthquake as a miracle rather than a disaster?

... that when the increase in piety of the inhabitants of New France following the 1663 Charlevoix earthquake proved to be short-lived, missionaries were left wishing for another great earthquake? Mikenorton (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If you don't beat me to it I will put the nomination up tomorrow morning. I felt like the article came together quickly and could probably spend some time to refine it, but that can come later. I will probably linger on this one for a few weeks making adjustments like the previous articles. Thanks for your suggestions on the hooks. I was still a ways off from coming up with something I felt confident in. Dawnseeker2000 05:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the nomination (I moved it to Feb 27th, as that was when the expansion started) and the review. I still need to do the review for my other nomination, but I keep getting distracted. Mikenorton (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)