Talk:1982 North Yemen earthquake

Link to generic earthquake catalogue
This is insufficient to verify several facts claimed on this page. The specific page should be linked, and if that's not possible, precise instructions on how to find that should be provided here. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Look dude, don't be a dick, alright? Dawnseeker2000  09:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then tell me how to verify the claims then? Try being helpful instead of just plain insulting, hyperbolic, and abusive. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't fucking call me a liar. Drop your email in the form here and they'll send you a download link. Dawnseeker2000  09:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't "fucking call [you] a liar" you abusive individual. I asked you to tell me how to verify the facts.  I've even downloaded the CSV file and its impenetrable.  This is no different from using  on a large PDF where guidance is required to find the details.  Now calm yourself down and try to be helpful to the readers by explaining how to get to the information they require rather than just pointing them at a homepage which offers zero verifiability of the claims being made. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the link at the bottom of this page in external links seems to verify 6.2 but doesn't agree on the location nor the depth while this one mentions a different location, different depth, but  no Mw but a Ms instead. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, as I'm sure you're aware, with earthquakes there are always myriad reports containing lots of differing figures. My stance with these articles is that if we were to include several or more of these figures it would just be confusing for the reader and probably look cluttered on the page as well.

I do apologize for jumping down your throat, but think if an editor were to do the same to one of your many good articles. Like if they were to put a failed verification tag on a citation to a book that they didn't have a copy of for example. So seeing those tags they're really just made me feel a little invalidated and I think that that is what plenty of editors may feel in the same situation.

I can promise you that obtaining a copy of the spreadsheet is not difficult. I can put the steps all in order for you, but please know that it is no more difficult than navigating any of the thousands of websites that are present these days and that we all need to use on a regular basis. Dawnseeker2000 09:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've also noted that JSTOR has this article which describes the earthquake on p. 305 as having an Ms of 5.7 and 1700 to 2800 deaths. There is a wide range of values for these particular fields across academic works and the external links given on the page, including direct conflicts for things such as the depth and the precise location, so I don't understand why one source (which even once downloaded is almost intractable) trumps all others.  In other such conflicts of information, it is normal to provide either the range of possible values, or "at least" for casualties (for example) or a footnote explaining to our readers that this article uses sources which conflict with one another but the conservative figures are used in an encyclopedic manner.   Oh, and no, I don't take "failed verification" personally at all.  I would just work on providing something a reader could verify, particularly when plenty of conflicting evidence is present in reliable sources.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

My final comment here is that, in seismological circles, the ISC is considered the final authority on earthquake parameters. In the future, please consider exhausting all other avenues (asking for help navigating the website, for example) before placing templates in an article that essentially says "this is potentially not correct". No one will like you for that, especially seasoned editors with handfuls of good articles under their belts. Take care, Dawnseeker2000  10:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No-one owns articles, I don't really care for your bogus interpretation. I have nearly 200 GAs and if someone suggested something wasn't clear, verifiable, potentially incorrect or needed explanation, I'd get on and try to improve things rather than resort to abusing rollback, accusing people of all sorts of things and blowing up, swearing and throwing your toys making fake accusations.  As several sources directly conflict with the one you have cherry-picked, I suggest that someone who cares for the readers rather than their own GAs does something to address this discrepancy.  I'm not here to get people to like me, I'm here to build a verifiable encyclopedia.  This article fails to live up to the standards we should be demanding, and you're clearly defending the indefensible in a personalised and childish fashion.  Have a great weekend.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)