User talk:Mikenorton/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


DYK for Gonâve Microplate

Updated DYK query On February 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gonâve Microplate, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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) 00:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi Mike:

Thanks for LVZ. Brews ohare (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, thanks for the expansion. I need to find out a bit more about the other LVZ, known also as the ULVZ Ultra Low Velocity Zone. I'm working on a Plate reconstruction page, which is nearly ready to go live, I'll value your input when it's ready. Mikenorton (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Janet Vida Watson

Updated DYK query On February 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Janet Vida Watson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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) 12:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Plate reconstruction

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Plate reconstruction 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! TitanOne (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Undoing and Reverting

Hello, in an attempt to undo revisions made to the article on Lima by IP addresses &, I undid whatever your contribution was to the article. I apologize. These users added many, many images to the article, and I believe it is part of an old edit war on that page. Rafajs77 (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Mikenorton (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Need help to save current Articles for deletion at WP:EARTHQUAKES

Hi-I saw your name on the talk page for WPEarthquakes. There was an anonymous IP who nominated four articles for deletion on Feb. 27th. I would really like to save these articles, as it would be a shame to see them go. Could you provide some input at their AfD talk pages, as I'm worried that the "delete" votes may outnumber the "keep" ones. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've voted to keep the Eureka event as clearly notable for its magnitude, but I'm in two minds about the others and have therefore not voted. Mikenorton (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Plate reconstruction

Updated DYK query On March 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Plate reconstruction, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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) 18:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1868 Arica earthquake

Updated DYK query On 7 March, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1868 Arica earthquake, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Gardner's relation

Hi. I saw you edited this article and also saw that you have a lot of experience with wikipedia and its methods. I want to ask you a questions. Is it possible to put up this image in the article? [[1]] It's taken from the original paper that is cited under the references. -Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. You would need the permission of the copyright holders, which is unlikely in this case. I'll see if there's any data around online from which such a plot could be reconstructed. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Gotcha. Let me know if I can help! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


Hey there Mike, I tried to come up with a hook [[2]]. Feel free to tweak it or change it completely if you wish. I listed you as the expander and myself as the nominator: that way, you get more credit, as you deserve. Best as always! ceranthor 04:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, nominate more of those articles at DYK! They make some great hooks: people are really into powerful earthquakes (particularly their effects ;). ceranthor 04:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, the hook is fine, sometimes it's tough to get one that really grabs people's attention. I've nominated lots of my articles for DYK, but some of these with no 'human interest' are pretty difficult, like the 1965 Rat Islands earthquake, for instance, cracks in a runway and $10,000 damage are a bit underwhelming for one of the strongest ever quakes. Mikenorton (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, some earthquakes are a lot more fascinating than others! Apart from this, the article looks good. We should try to collaborate on articles more often. ceranthor 22:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Ha, you would almost think that I'd copied the infobox from the 1730 Valparaiso quake, thanks for spotting that. As to earthquake articles, I'm always happy to collaborate. I'm currently building an article for the 1963 Kuril Islands earthquake here, although I can't find a lot of information. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1730 Valparaiso earthquake

Updated DYK query On March 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1730 Valparaiso earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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) 12:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

25 DYK Creation/Expansion Medal

Dyk25CE.svg The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
Congratulations for passing the milestone of 25 articles created or expanded by yourself, ones that were listed at 'Did you know?' on the main page. Your geology and earthquake articles make fine additions to the encyclopedia. The Wiki thanks you! Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1922 Vallenar earthquake

Updated DYK query On March 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1922 Vallenar earthquake, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Gatoclass 06:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Volcanologist request

Hi Mike,

Ceranthor, Carcharoth, and I brought the article on David A. Johnston, the volcanologist who died in the Mount St. Helens eruption, to FAC. We're hoping that if we get enough reviews to get it through FAC in a reasonable amount of time that it can be the featured article of the day on May 18, the 30th anniversary of the eruption.

If you have the time, could you please look through it and review it? (And if you don't have the time, don't worry.) Thanks!

By the way, I still intend to help on lithology and the others in your sandboxes; this article just took up all of my Wikipedia time, and I'm headed out of town Wednesday. Someday... Awickert (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I hope to take a look at this later today - I've been a bit tied up at DYK when I've had some spare time, as the backlog of unapproved nominations there was getting rather serious. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much - as you may have noticed, I've been pretty tied up recently as well. Wikipedia is a fun project, but work gets in the way! (Yes, your sandboxes are still in the back of my mind.) Awickert (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Re DYK nominations

Hi, just saw your note that you were looking for feedback on your DYK vetting. I'm new to the process myself so take this with a grain of salt but one thing I noticed was that your comment for Sound, Cheshire didn't mention the image. Hooks with an attached image also require you to check that: (a) the image has rollover text (b) the image has alt text (c) the image has no obvious copyright/free use problems Hope that's helpful! - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I had forgotten about the rollover text. I can't find anything that requires alt text, although I know that its very useful. I've checked through the DYK rules but couldn't find anything about this. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place. Mikenorton (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Per Manual of Style - Images, best practice is for all images to have suitable alt text. The main page should as far as possible always conform to the Manual of Style and best practice. Hope that helps! - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

dyk Alliance of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Mikenorton (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Consulting (Geology)

Iceland: Lava from the Katla and the Hekla volcanic systems result in transitional alkalic basalts and the central volcanos ones result in tholeiitic basalts. Question: Is transitional alkalic basalts the same as high alumina basalt? Thx for an answer :) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't you just love scientific terminology. I had a look at this when the question was raised elsewhere (I can't remember either where that was or whether I got round to replying (apparently the answers are by you at Talk:Basalt and no)). From what I gathered, they were considered by some to be the same but not by everyone, which isn't very helpful. Transitional I take to mean transitional between tholeiitic and alkaline. High alumina basalt was a term introduced by Kuno,[3] who interpreted them to be primary melts of mantle material at depths intermediate between those at which tholeiite and alk-basalt magmas were formed. Others have reckoned that they are more likely to be a result of differentiation of a primary magma at depth. Brody & Marsh reckon that they are primary melts, but of quartz-eclogite from the subducting slab - they also point out that it has been shown experimentally that the High-Al basalts can never have been in equilibrium with either an olivine-bearing magma or source rock. I think that this was where I gave up last time :-). This more recent note by Draper [4], does at least define High-Al basalts as aluminium rich tholeiites (which others would probably call transitional I'm guessing). I just found another ref that suggests that some HAB magmas originate by partial melting at the base of continental crust above a mantle upwelling in a rift setting (I have full text access for this one, unfortunately the abstract doesn't go into any detail). I'm not sure if any of this helps. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thx :) No easy way out so --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#WA Earth Quake

Hello again! I was wondering if you could help us out and answer some questions about the 2010 Kalgoorlie-Boulder earthquake. We're wondering about the differences in measuring earthquakes by the Richter and/or the moment magnitude scales. Is the Richter scale used in Australia because that's the quickest measurement from the seismograph? Why does the USGS use the MW scale instead? Do they have different instruments? Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not wanting to put Australian earthquakes down, but the Mw scale is used for larger earthquakes M>7 or thereabouts, whereas the local magnitude scale (or Richter) is fine for M<7 earthquakes - it just becomes a poor measure of released energy for biggere events. Hope that helps. Mikenorton (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


for this. I was planning on going back to expand it, but looks like you beat me to it. ;) ceranthor 21:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK issue

Fixed problem with my DYK hook that you reviewed. Was fixing it but got edit conflicted. KV5 (TalkPhils) 15:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Como La Flor

It's ok, you did in a way said it rude, but I would so much enjoy you helping me have one of the articles I produced with hard work a canadate for DYK. Thank you AJona1992 (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New sources of amber (incl. blue)

Hello Mikenorton.

Did you delete my addition to the Amber page on New sources of amber (incl. blue)? If so, why?

Irwan Holmes (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary I gave was rv - you'll need a source for this and I've not been able to find any on a quick search - see talk and on the talk page I started a new section to explain why and said I reverted the addition of a new section on blue amber from Indonesia as it was unsupported by sources and I have been unable to find any - it read a bit like an advert. So that's why. If you have a good source for this Indonesian blue amber, then you can add it back. Mikenorton (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Amber (including blue amber) was just discovered in Sumatra a few months ago, so no one has written about it yet—but we can supply photos. Irwan Holmes (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Technical hooks

Technical words are allowed in articles and it's preferable for them to be linked. There is no rule that technical words aren't allowed: Wikipedia:Did you know#The hook. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, the summary I added was perhaps aimed more at Yoninah in mild exasperation, I have had more technical hooks than this accepted at DYK before, the whole purpose of the project should be to get people to delve deeper into subjects that they haven't encountered before. Mikenorton (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully he doesn't say anything about my hook: "...that that fungus Epidermophyton floccosum can cause the diseases tinea pedis, tinea cruris, tinea corporis, and onychomycosis?". I hate it when editors that don't understand DYK at all try to check hooks. Joe Chill (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
But there are never enough people out there checking hooks (I did one long stint at it when the backlog was huge last month, but I didn't find it the most enjoyable activity), so we have to accept those that are prepared to put in the time and hope that the experienced DYK editors catch any problems that result. Mikenorton (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed my wording. I though that it would be obvious what hook I was verifying, but now I think that isn't so. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Responded to your Comment on my Talk Page

As you requested, I am just letting you know where my response to your comment is (and also ask you a question over there).

Thanks, (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Pleistocene lakes

Thanks for catching this, I sort of misread List of prehistoric lakes as Pleistocene lakes -- hey, you always find what you're looking for, right?
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well that explains it, I was a bit mystified; anyway, no problem. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for European Cenozoic Rift System

RlevseTalk 12:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Gulf of Suez Rift

RlevseTalk 12:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1992 Cairo earthquake

-- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk 20:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi Mike,

I was looking over your first sandbox, and I have two thoughts/questions before I'd feel OK proceeding.

  1. To me, "lithology" is both a long-winded definition (e.g., calcite-cemented sandstone with 93% quartz, 2% feldspar, 5% lithics, well-rounded, well sorted with a grain size distribution of [insert full distribution here, either fine/coarse/very coarse/etc. or actual diameters], and onandonandon..., AND a simple description (e.g., vesicular basalt). Is this the same on the other side of the Atlantic?
  1. Do you think that it would be better to organize the article into "sedimentary", "igneous", and "metamorphic" sections, into which many of the current sections will become subsections? Or do you like the way it is (with classification schemes for different rock types naturally falling into those)?

Awickert (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

HI Andy,
You're right that the lede needs to mention both definitions - many of the sources that I found described the term in that way, which is how I use the term as well, so no transatlantic differences in this case I think.
The current layout is just the way that I first thought about it. Dividing it up into the main groups of rocks might mean less tortuous text e.g. in fabric. Would it be too much work to produce two versions? - actually given the rate that we're moving ahead on this I'm not sure that that's a very good idea. I can see advantages to both ways of organising it. I'll prevaricate think about it some more. Mikenorton (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes - let's get done with this before we set our sights higher. You're working with me here...
Let me know when you finish contemplating. My family will be in town next week, and I'll be going into the field on the 5th of July, so the week after next (including the preceding weekend) would be my window of opportunity. Awickert (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1964 Niigata earthquake

-- Cirt (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Vangjel Meksi

Hi, thanks for your note on my talk page for the DYK. I actually don't think I can expand that much the article, I think I exhausted all the sources and I don't want to be wordy, unless I bring some citations of the letters of Pinkerton. Do citations count? --Sulmues Let's talk 23:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that they don't. Sorry to disappoint you, it's worth getting hold of DYKcheck or similar if you plan to do more expansions. Mikenorton (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
See if it's Ok now. Size looks fine to me. Let me know if there are still any issues. --Sulmues Let's talk 13:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get around to it earlier - the day job got in the way, but I see that it has been approved now. Mikenorton (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Mikenorton, what I try to do is make sure the ones which have serious issues don't get through by mistake. I do mark borderline cases with '?', but just the other day I marked one with problems as a '?', and Rlevse still picked it by mistake, which he later had to reverse. He then told me it's better to fail such cases, because of the possible errors in picking them by mistake. I guess the orange color stands out more, so people are less likely to pick it by accident. I assume that any nominator with any interest will be following closely the review comments, and that 'failed' items can still be resurrected with some effort, before they are removed. Crum375 (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I only now noticed your reply. I agree that people have to be notified, and I do it fairly regularly, although not always immediately. In this case, I felt the orange icon with the simple message "Fails WP:DYKCHECK 5x expansion" would attract the attention of the nominator fairly quickly. I also felt that given that message, the nominator would immediately run WP:DYKCHECK on it to verify (and take the one minute to add it to his Monoboook.js if he doesn't already have it), if he cares about his nomination. As far as the 4.7x as an allowable mark, I would have appreciated knowing about it when I recently spent a lot of extra time and effort expanding my own DYK article to 5x. This is why we have written rules, and being a wiki they are easy to modify at any time, and if there is a special rule that "if your article is over X kB long, you only need to expand it by 4.7x", it should be added to the rule set. If it's not there, I would assume there is no consensus for it, and therefore the 5x remains, even for larger articles. The point is that we can't fool around with rules, because people would get demoralized if they think we have one rule for them, and another for our buddies. Sometimes being "harsh" in the short term, works out as the kindest and most productive approach in the long run. Crum375 (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your DYK work

Hi, I just wanted to tell you that your efforts at DYK are noticed and appreciated. I'm referring specifically to your softening of some Draconian reviews, and also your conscientiousness in notifying the nominators. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 23:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1927 Gulang earthquake

RlevseTalk 00:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


Looks like we were editing Torridonian at the same time, hope I didn't cause a conflict - I wasn't even aware of it. Might want to explain Sphaeromorphic -- I'm not into paleontology and don't know what it is :) Vsmith (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's what the source uses. I think it just means somewhat spherical in shape - it's probably from the original 1907 reference. I think I'll replace it with acritarch, which just means an organic structure that can't be classified, which is obviously true in this case. Thanks for adding all those links - I should have done it before I copied the expansion over from my sandbox, but I kind of get to the stage where I just want rid of the thing. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Acritarch... looks like that one is on my watchlist - edited it way back when, then forgot. Ok, makes more sense now. As to "...all those links...", when reading something new (to me) it's kinda compulsive. Thanks for writing "new stuff"! Vsmith (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Earthquake Map Suggestion

It might be better to find a way to merge the two pictures. The earthquake is near the border but WAS centered in Quebec, so reading about how it affected Toronto, Ontario and seeing no Ontario on the map...

Just a penny for thought. =) CycloneGU (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The infobox uses a location map template which uses the coordinates provided to place the marker in the right place on the location map. The number of location maps is limited, so in this case it's either the whole of Canada or Quebec. If someone created a location map for Central Canada, that would be ideal, but I have no idea how you would go about either doing that or finding someone to do it for you. The alternative is to make a custom map of the area, the location maps are just a really quick solution and in many cases good enough. Mikenorton (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lewisian complex

RlevseTalk 06:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hebridean Terrane

RlevseTalk 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Torridonian

RlevseTalk 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1929 Murchison earthquake

RlevseTalk 18:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy Mikenorton's Day!

Featured article star.svg

User:Mikenorton has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Mikenorton's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Mikenorton!

00:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.RlevseTalk 00:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rlevse, much appreciated. Mikenorton (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Paul the Octopus resolution

Hi Mikenorton, with regards to the DYK nominations for Paul the Octopus (and Mani the Parakeet), you may wish to read my proposed resolution at the nomination page here. I look forward to a reply there soon so that we can proceed onwards. Thanks! AngChenrui (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied on the DYK talk page, a simple solution to a potentially complex problem. Mikenorton (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Marlborough Fault System

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Wairau Fault

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Awatere Fault

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Clarence Fault

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hope Fault

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Help out with reviewing DYK nominations!

Hi Mikenorton, the nomination entry system for DYK is backlogged - nominations up till as early as July 4 have yet to receive a single review. There have only been reviews on some articles sporadically, across the board (July 3 to July 10). You may want to consider volunteering your services as a reviewer at this time. We need to clear the "older nominations" before it turns old (and stale). Quick link here. Thanks! AngChenrui (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually this is nothing like as backlogged as it was a few months ago, when there often less than 20 approved hooks at any one time. That was the point when I did quite a bit of reviewing. At the moment I concentrate on checking image rollover and alt texts, but if I get some time, I'll see what I can do. Mikenorton (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1978 Miyagi earthquake

RlevseTalk 00:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1930 Irpinia earthquake

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dzungarian Gate

I just saw your Altyn Tagh fault article on the DYK nom page. I recently created (a still rather poorly and haphazardly written) article on the Dzungarian Gate. If you are interested and have anything to say about its geography (my interest is primarily historical) it would be appreciated.μηδείς (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Medeis, I had a dig around and eventually found references to the Junggar fault system (mostly using that spelling), showing clearly that is a dextral (right lateral) strike-slip fault. To create the valley, it's probably transtensional, but I've found no sources that mention that, so I've just added the strike-slip bit and the ref to the article. It would be good to have a geology section, but I fear that there wouldn't be much to go in it. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, very much, I can just barely pretend that I understand the lingo (I only have a BA in Bio &Phil) but I very much appreciate the contribution.

I was curious if you might be able to generate and upload an image of the valley from the Nasa WorldWind program? I am trying to install it on my MAC but have not yet done so and have never before uploaded an image to wikimedia. If you have the time and the capability and would be willing it would be nice to have an image of the valley itself or an image focused on the valley which includes the local features, lakes alakol and ebinur and some of the steppe, dzungarian plian, and the alatau range. The article goes on DYK tomorrow morning.μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, my thanks for the contributions.μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

How does that look? Mikenorton (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, most excellent! μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I still haven't been able to verify the 5830m height quoted for Altun Shan in the Altyn Tagh DYK. I see the 5798m height quoted on Google Scholar, that same height being given in Altyn Tagh. If you either change the height or provide me a link I'll okay the hook.μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


car'v aluk?:)-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine, the Miocene limestone is supported by the full text, which I have access to, but not the Melanesian orogeny bit; I'll add another reference for that. Mikenorton (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

ta!:D-----Please note, I have [[Repetitive Strain Injury]] and find typing very hard. I use a form of shorthand, which may be difficult to understand. I can be contacted through MSN (sven70) or Skype (sven0921) if my meaning is unclear. (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


do uno ofmaps2ad pl?

Hi Sven, sorry to take so long to respond, I've been a bit busy these last few days. I don't have access to any maps of that area I'm afraid. Mikenorton (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1949 Khait earthquake

RlevseTalk 06:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Even without being able to check the references (One seems to be on paper, the other is behind a paywall), there must be a unit error somewhere. The DYK and the article itself both talk about volumes measured in Mm3 - as far as I can tell, this is impossible. Note that Mm3 does not mean millions of m3, it means (Mm)3.

The area covered by the Yasman valley slide is about 24.4 km2, with a total estimated volume of 245 Mm3.

If you put that volume on top of that area, it would have an average thickness of about 10 000 000 000 km, or 25 000 times the circumference of the earth! Even with Mm replaced by km, it would still be about 10 km thick. --Ørjan (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The unit 1Mm3 is 1 million cubic metres and is the unit normally used to describe landslide volumes, unless they are more than 1000 Mm3, in which case researchers use km3. That may be confusing (although I never met a Megametre in real life), but it is the unit that is used. The Evans et al. Engineering Geology ref. link should show you the abstract for free and contains the volume information with the units used exactly as they appear in the article and the DYK hook. Mikenorton (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added an explanation of the non-standard unit in the article text to prevent any possible confusion. Mikenorton (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Huh. After writing the above, I had a bad hunch about this, so I checked SI prefix which clearly says this usage is not allowed. Maybe that article should be updated to reflect de facto usage. --Ørjan (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Scientists are just looking for units that offer a nice range for what they are describing, most landslides fit neatly in the 10 to 500 million cubic metres range, using 0.01 to 0.5 km3 for some reason doesn't look so good. The M still means million, which is OK in SI but it should probably be rendered as M(m3) (or of course the correct hm3), if a note is needed it should go on the cubic metre page. Hectometres just don't get used very often (at least in the literature I'm familiar with), I would have to think even harder about what a hm3 was. Mikenorton (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of the Earth Sciences

Development of plate tectonic theory? Timeline of the Geodynamics? More suggestions? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Altyn Tagh fault

RlevseTalk 06:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to Seven Wonders of the Ancient World ...

... is totally awesome [7]! I had no idea that we have articles on seven hundred year old earthquakes. Kudos to you, sir, for your excellent work on the 1303 Crete earthquake article! — Kralizec! (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I only came across the earthquake when I started compiling the list of earthquakes in Greece and when I found that there were a lot of good sources, it wasn't hard to write. In fact it could be expanded to a much larger article based on the Guidoboni and Comastri ref, which is amazingly comprehensive. Mikenorton (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1481 Rhodes earthquake

RlevseTalk 12:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of earthquakes in Greece

RlevseTalk 18:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1303 Crete earthquake

RlevseTalk 18:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hellenic arc

RlevseTalk 18:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1222 Cyprus earthquake

Courcelles 18:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1881 Chios earthquake

RlevseTalk 12:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1991 Racha earthquake

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1887 Sonora earthquake

RlevseTalk 12:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edit on Scott's Article

Thanks, I was looking for that interlink but couldn't find it, and finally gave up on it, resigning to later on research about it and perhaps make an article for it myself. ~ Dr. Lords (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although being on a diet I should probably ignore it :), it was a really easy article to write with two sources that backed each other up and added different detail, all I need now is a picture of the ship itself - that may be more of a challenge. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Graveney Marsh

Thanks for cleaning up the orphan tag, that spared me a few lines on TDYK. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, interesting article. Mikenorton (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ring of Fire

Dyk50CE.svg The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
Firstly I'd like to thank you for you support of the DYK project in general. Then I'd like to note that you have created half a century of your tectonic articles. Well done! Personally I think you've got it bad. The earth has moved so many times and you have registered over 50 on the wiki-scale. So thanks for taking the mantle - the wiki is all the more richer for your contributions. Thank you. Victuallers (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Mikenorton (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1868 Ecuador earthquakes

RlevseTalk 12:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Carnegie (ship)

RlevseTalk 00:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Carnegie Ridge

RlevseTalk 00:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Shear zone

Hi Mike,
thanx for your encouraging mail, sounds like you were happy with my "first attempt" ;-))
It would be great if you could add some nice illustrations. I'm based in the Dordogne and you have to drive quite a long way east till you hit the Sillon Houiller. I'm not talking about the South Armorican Shear Zone, that's even farther...
All the best, Rudi --Rudolf Pohl (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My reference desk question

You're right, we do have death caps in BC! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not one of Europe's nicest exports to North America. Mikenorton (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes, Volcanoguy asks: "if mines within volcanics should be included". I do not have a problem with volcanic pipes, stub quality level, start quality level. Copper minning in flood basalts is more of a problem, I think. Would u like to throw ur two cents? Thx. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


The Armorican terrane and the Armorican Massif seem to be not far from each other :p --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Chris I've opened a discussion on this topic at Talk:Armorican terrane, as I think it a better location. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1975 Lice earthquake

RlevseTalk 12:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Insect identification

Thanks for you fast response to my insect identification question. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome and (what else) cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Wellington Fault

RlevseTalk 06:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I've got two problems. 1. A lot of articles started by me were nominated for deletion. I do not hope that everyone's gonna think every article worths to be here. If you think there's some article which should be kept, please just keep watching it. 2. I was sent a notification about the deletion nomination for EVERY ARTICLE BY THE SAME GUY and it's annoying. Any administrator to whom I can appeal? Thanks. Qrfqr (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I try to keep an eye on the AfD lists and contribute when I find an earthquake article up for deletion. Many of the ones put up for deletion are about non-notable events, but some deletionists are taking this too far - the 1965 Oaxaca earthquake being a case in point. As to an administrator, you could try Ceranthor. Mikenorton (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I've commented at most of them I think - tell me if I've missed any. Mikenorton (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
All are covered. Thanks. Qrfqr (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Plate tectonics

Vsmith spread some citation needed tags again on Plate tectonics#Gravity related driving forces :( Do u have something at hand, or do we have to search?

  • Chester R. Longwell cites Reginald Aldworth Daly: "...seeks to substitute sliding for drifting, assuming that broad domes or bulges form at the earth's surface, and on the flanks of these domes the continental masses slide downward, moving over hot basaltic glass as over a lubricated floor."
  • Kerr, Richard A. (1995). "Earth's Surface May Move Itself". Science. 269 (5228): 1214–1215. doi:10.1126/science.269.5228.1214. PMID 17732101. Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • More ideas? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Chris, I'll have a look when I get some time. The last time I looked at this stuff I seem to remember the sources being pretty contradictory about the relevant importance of the proposed mechanisms. Mikenorton (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Thx, Awickert is thinking about it too, as u can see on the Talk:Plate tectonics. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I saw that, although I'm currently prevaricating on other things. I'm not aware of any recent good summaries, which is surprising considering the importance of the subject, but I remember how difficult it was to find a source for the relative displacement rates of plates. Mikenorton (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Pichilemu earthquake

Hi Mikenorton! I was wondering if you could help me adding (or expanding the tectonics section, with) info about the Pichilemu Fault. I'm not good redacting such technical things, and as I have seen you working on other earthquake articles I've worked on too, I came here :-) Thanks in advance, Diego Grez (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Mikenorton (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK on Double Arches Pit

Hi Mike, I've responded and made changes, following you comment on my nomination. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Acather, I've changed 'mine' to 'quarry' both in the hook and in the article because that term is used in some of the sources, whereas 'mine' is never used. Mikenorton (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1835 Concepción earthquake

-- Cirt (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1855 Ansei Edo earthquake

-- Cirt (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Mikenorton/Sandbox (Lithology)

Hi Mike,

I added a few things to "lithology" in the past weeks. I read through it and it looks to me like it's about ready to go live. The only thing that seems missing is more citations, but those can be added later I think (though of course, your sandbox = your call).

Anyway, let me know what you think needs to be done, so I can stop hogging sandbox #1!

Awickert (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I had noticed that things were happening there, just felt bad that I hadn't been adding anything myself. I agree it's better than some of the stuff out there already, so no need to hang back. You can do the honours if you like, or I'll get round to it some time today (which is Singapore time for me at the moment - soon to be Jakarta time). Thanks for working on this Andy, collaborative efforts are good even if this must be one of the slowest :-), cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
They're always the slowest when I'm involved :-). You can do the honors; I think you wrote more of it anyway. Very glad to have this off my conscience -- not having it done has been bugging me for, well, all summer and fall. Awickert (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that the timescale is important, a lot of problems on Wikipedia would be solved if folk would just take things a little more slowly. Putting it out there now. Mikenorton (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Just like this reply! If I had checked Wikipedia to make it right away, I might not have gotten my work done.
And I certainly wouldn't have had a clear enough head to tell you that I just took a short course on how to use Gale, and if/when I learn it better, I'll try to set up a model run to make figs / animations for WP. And/or I'll just ask for permission to use one of their examples. You can create some pretty nice critical tapers and rifts; if you want to play around, they have prebuilt binaries you can download, sample input files, and a tutorial in their manual. Awickert (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like fun! I would have killed for that sort of software when I was doing my PhD, attempting to model the propagation of shear zones, perhaps I should have a look at it myself. Mikenorton (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
It is fun! I don't even do tectonics and I'm enjoying it. Technology has progressed!
What it does is solve the heat equation coupled with Stokes flow. Faults, etc. are formed in the Stokes flow model via strain weakining and a Mohr-Coulomb-esque criterion. The downside is that the input is written in xml, which makes it sort of a pain to write. It's based on an Australian (Monash U.) code called "underworld", if that means anything to you.
If you have some time, you should download it and go through their "cookbooks" (chapter 5 of the manual). It goes through how to set boundary conditions, etc: maybe you could even try to propagate a shear zone. Awickert (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Never heard of 'underworld' but then I've been a consultant for more than 21 years, so I'm way out of date. I should try to give it a go, maybe even finally write up some of my PhD (like that's going to happen), thanks for mentioning it. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem; enjoy! I'll send you output I get if I do anything neat. Awickert (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1907 Kingston earthquake

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


When u make ur maps based on many maps, how do u avoid copyright problems? What one has to avoid doing? Any advices? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I start with a basic map , e.g. for the Moine Supergroup, File:MainlandMoineOutcrop.png I started with figure 4.3 of the Geology of Scotland, following most, but not all of the boundaries, simplifying a bit here and there, using different symbols and colours instead of patterns, before combining it with figure 4.12 of the same book. This is no different to how I would proceed if I was writing a scientific paper, with the normal formulation being 'modified after author, date or 'based on author, date. As far as I know that's OK, but of course I'm not completely certain. A direct copy needs the permission of the copyright holder, naturally, and the question of how much you have to change the original to stay clear of copyright concerns is not entirely clear. If you compare the originals you'll note that I've left off the inset maps of Orkney and Shetland, I've left off the Loch Quoich Line (LQL) and all the location labels, simplified the Moine Thrust by missing out later faults, distinguished 'older' from 'newer' granites based on another map in addition to producing a single map rather than two. Slavish copying is what you need to avoid, but precisely how much change from the original is 'enough'? - good question. Mikenorton (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
For the File:Hebridean Terrane.png map I wanted to show detail in the Lewisian and the breakdown of the post-Lewisian cover, which meant taking boundaries from three of the maps in the book, I also needed to use another one of Graham Park's papers to check up on (and modify) some of the boundaries in the Geology of Scotland, so my map differs from all the other three, because, as I was using colours, I could distinguish more rock units than on the original. I'm almost certain that no-one would claim that as a copyright infringement. Mikenorton (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Thx, which software do u use? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Inkscape, which I like using and has good functionality (that and the fact that it's free of course), although I have so far been unable to export .svg files, something that I've so far failed to get to the bottom of. I just upload .png files, which is good enough. Mikenorton (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Thx :) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


Hi Mike! I'm trying to finish the Ambato article and ship it off to FAC. I just realized that a few of the sources in the final section are ones that I'm unfamiliar with; it appears you added them. Thanks, first of all, and second, are they reliable? One of them isn't fully sourced; if you could finish the reference or supply the url for it I'd appreciate that! Thanks. ceranthor 00:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ceranthor, yes those were down to me after the GA reviewer suggested that an 'aftermath' section would help. The source with no url (#18) was borrowed from the Ambato article, I've replaced it with a better one, although it is in Spanish. Ref no. 20 should be fine as is, the cathedral one (#19) is not ideal, as it comes from a travel company and I'm doing my best to find an alternative - if all else fails, that sentence will need a rewrite to match a better quality, if possibly less informative, source (I mean, building a huge white cathedral is a very clear statement of something). Ref #17 could be better, maybe the new spanish one will be sufficient on its own. Mikenorton (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I've added a new source about the cathedral, in spanish again, which I think says that it "stands out, due to its great size, in the context of the architecture of its urban surroundings", which fits the existing text pretty well. Mikenorton (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, all that's left is the blog. ceranthor 15:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination

I adjusted the hook for the Venues of the 1976 Winter Olympics if you wish to look. Chris (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Cavell Van

I've replied at T:TDYK#Cavell Van. Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for that - I thought it looked iffy, and was about to ask you to check. DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I think that I understand the confusion (although for 350 Ma it should of course have been early Carboniferous). Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1932 Changma earthquake

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1881 Nicobar Islands earthquake

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

List of landslides

Mikenorton - please look at the discussion I started at Talk:List of landslides and join in. Thanks, Argyriou (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Temagami greenstone belt

Hey. I started a discussion about the Temagami greenstone belt on my talk page about its possible origin(s). If you have time could you give your thoughts? Thanks. Volcanoguy 09:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


Re. Template_talk:Did_you_know#Nympsfield_Long_Barrow

Fair point; can you help me out here, and help think up a better alternative? And sure, any improvement to the article would also be welcome.

Mostly avoid DYK trouble, can you please suggest something acceptable? (normally, I'd try much harder myself - but right now, I can't get online much) - thanks -  Chzz  ►  00:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do, I'm working at home today as my local trains are heavily disrupted due to yesterday's snow. Mikenorton (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I've reorganised and expanded it some. Tomb of the Eagles shows that since 1862 other chambered tombs have been found to contain bird bones, so I've suggested a few alts on the DYK talk page. Mikenorton (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks!  Chzz  ►  00:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 2002 Sumatra earthquake

Courcelles 12:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Foreshock

Courcelles 12:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Gruta De Torres

Hi! Mikenorton We meet again after quite a few months. Thanks for the intervention and clarifications. I tried to get the latest available data but was not successful. The DYK is now retrieved.-- N.V.V. Char Talk . 03:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, glad to be of help. I visited the cave last year, so I have been keeping an eye on the article. Mikenorton (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)