Talk:ARkStorm

Plagiarism?
I just took a look on the summary of the effects of an ARkStorm included in the USGS publication. It looks like the description section of this article was outright copy-and-pasted from the publication, meaning plagiarism. If someone is interrested to, please rewrite this section. I may do soon if no one else is interrested in that. Ren97 (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * USGS publications are public domain, so reuse of their text is legitimate if properly credited. --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is not plagiarism (well, I did not intend it to be). I think that I did restate the info in my own words. Anyhow, the information is cited, so there shouldn't be anything wrong with it. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"Exceptionally" = PUFFERY?
, you added the word exceptionally to describe the intense rains of 1861-1862. I reverted with an edit summary saying "exceptionally" was not in the source, and constitutes WP:PUFFERY. Once you are reverted you should open a discussion on the talk page, in keeping with WP:BRD, but of course you know that. Instead, you have simply restored your edit. Please explain why adding your own assessment of the "exceptional" nature of this event is not WP:PUFFERY? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * These storms only occur at intervals of a few hundred to a thousand years, and storms strong enough to trigger such catastrophes as the Great Flood of 1861–62 are exceptional in intensity. The ARkStorm of 1861–62 being dubbed as a "Megastorm" or something along that line also delineates the fact that this storm was unusually powerful. There are also several sources out there that echo similar thoughts, which should be sourced somewhere in these articles or in my sandbox. If not, it shouldn't take that long to locate such sources anyway. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why spend time saying it won't take long instead of just doing it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on ARkStorm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110119230522/http://urbanearth.gps.caltech.edu:80/winter-storm/ to http://urbanearth.gps.caltech.edu/winter-storm/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204182923/http://www.watereducation.org/doc.asp?id=2075 to http://www.watereducation.org/doc.asp?id=2075

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

— Gorthian (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

1,000 (°K)
The article could be improved by explaining the 1,000 or (K) part. Perhaps it might refer to a one-thousand-year storm(?), but does not say that. It does refer to a great flood, that then refers to occurrences in California every 100 to 200 years. [Perhaps the USGS should change it to ARccStorm instead]. Or perhaps jargon with the letter (K) just sounds more kool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Another editor did respond by adding this information to the article. I've kept it in the article, but did some copyediting related to it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

RCP 8.5
RCP 8.5 is used in the table without definition or discussion. RCP is "Representative Concentration Pathway", which is a term associated with climate change prediction. Its meaning will be obvious to few readers. As I understand it, RCP 8.5 represents a worst case climate change scenario, in terms of societal behavior contributing to climate change. 204.237.49.191 (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Accepting Risk
I question whether this section, as written, belongs in this article. Perhaps it could be improved in manner that makes it work. As it is, it seems a bit editorial and disembodied. The intent of including it can be inferred, but the linkage is not explicit. 204.237.49.191 (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)