User talk:Elriana

Welcome!
Hello, Elriana, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Vsmith (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Earthquake sensitive
Hi. I'd be interested in any comments you might have re Draft:Earthquake sensitive. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

And likewise in the Rfc at Talk:Earthquake_prediction. I believe you know a thing or three about this topic, right? :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC).

Some earthquake forecasting reviews
Hi, Elriana. Some items you might find of particular interest. In addition to all the other stuff! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Console, R. (30 August 2001) Testing earthquake forecast hypotheses. Tectonophysics 338(3-4):261—268 doi: 10.1016/S0040-1951(01)00081-6

Lee, Ya-Ting; Donald L. Turcotte; James R. Holliday; Michael K. Sachs; John B. Rundle; Chien-Chih Chen; and Kristy F. Tiampo (2011) Results of the Regional Earthquake Likelihood Models (RELM) test of earthquake forecasts in California. PNAS ... http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/09/19/1113481108.full.pdf#page=1&view=FitH

Nanjo, K. Z.; H. Tsuruoka; N. Hirata; T. H. Jordan ( 2011) Overview of the ﬁrst earthquake forecast testing experiment in Japan. Earth Planets Space 63:159-169 doi:10.5047/eps.2010.10.003 http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/2011/6303/63030159.pdf Lists methods submitted for CSEP testing. VAN not included.

Ogata, Yosihiko; Koichi Katsura; Giuseppe Falcone; Kazuyoshi Nanjo and Jiancang Zhuang (June 2013) Comprehensive and topical evaluations of earthquake forecasts in terms of number, time, space, and magnitude. BSSA 103(3):1692-1708  doi: 10.1785/0120120063

Rhoades, D.A.; F.F. Evison ( 1979) Long-range earthquake forecasting based on a single predictor. Geophys. J. R. astr. Soc. 59:43-56 http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/1/43.full.pdf Present a theoretical framework for presenting predictive information.

Savage, Jim (April 30, 1990) Criticism of some forecasts of the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluaton Council, in USGS OFR 90-722, p207/213. See Kerr90-sci249 for article about this. "This paper is concerned with the assessments of the probability of future rupture of identified segments of the San Andreas fault as formulated by  the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP)". Several other appendices in ofr 90-722 address Savage's criticism.

Tiampo, Kristy F.; Robert Shcherbakov (2012) Seismicity-based earthquake forecasting techniques: Ten years of progress (review article) Tectonophysics 522—523:89-121 doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2011.08.019 http://www.upo.es/eps/troncoso/Citas/ESWA10/citaESWA-3.pdf

Vere-Jones, David (1995). Forecasting earthquakes and earthquake risk. International Journal of Forecasting, 11: 503—538 http://forprin_old.dev.zoe.co.nz/paperpdf/Vere-Jones-forecastingearthquakes.pdf

Zechar, J.D. (2010), Evaluating earthquake predictions and earthquake forecasts: a guide for students and new researchers, Community Online Resource for Statistical Seismicity Analysis, doi:10.5078/corssa-77337879. http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zechar2010corssa.pdf Good tutorial, but contingency table is turned around.

Nobel laureates/Universities
I would like to thank you for your observation. Ber31 (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on Nobel Counting Page regarding "Fairchild Visiting Program" at Caltech.
Thank you for your contribution for Nobel laureates counting page. Please join the discussion: Talk:List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation. We need to reach consensus before further editing. The discussion will set up an example for many other universities. Minimumbias (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Richter scale
Hallo. Im Deutschen würde es ja auch völlig genügen zu sagen "Erdbeben mit einer Stärke von $number", womit man also nicht mal das Wort Magnitude braucht. Das sollte eigentlich auch im Englischen funktionieren mit Strength, denke ich. Jedenfalls genügt es immer "magnitude (of) $number" zu schreiben - um nichts falsches gesagt zu haben. --Itu (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Ja, das ist nicht so anders auf Englisch. Wir sagen normalerweise "an earthquake with magnitude $number", aber es gibt Leute die "magnitude" nicht verstehen. Sie fragen mir oft, "Like the Richter scale?" Es ist eine Idee wir haben als wir jung waren gehoert, und die Woerter maken einige Leute besser verstehen. Nein, die Wissenschaftler benutzen es mehr nicht, aber es ist immer noch ein weit verbreitet Idee. Deshalb wir sollen einmal in den Artikel die Woerter benutzen. (Entschuldigung, wenn mein Deutsch nicht perfekt ist. Ich schreibe es selten.) Elriana (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:SPEAKENGLISH. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was simply using the fact that Elriana has a de-3 Babel, for doing a comparison de-en about how to tell an earthquake strength. --Itu (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * And I have no objection if explaining it to you in German helps improve your understanding. But as these matters are related to a current discussion at Talk:Lists of earthquakes I point out that there is a guideline to be aware of. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Nobel laureates/Universities (Again!)
Thank you for your contribution for Nobel laureates counting page. Please join the discussion: Talk:List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation: Award-based Visiting Professorships (and other problems). We need to reach consensus. Ber31 (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Portals
Hi,

I noticed your interest in portals. Here is what has been going on behind-the-scenes with them...

Currently, there are about 1500 portals, comprised of 150,000 pages in portal space, the rest beyond the 1500 being subpages. Most of those subpages contain an excerpt, copied and pasted from some article. Such excerpts never change, and they go stale over time (no longer matching the original source material).

The Portal WikiProject was rebooted on April 17th, and has grown to 68 members. We've been busy redesigning the portal model so that portals will not need all those subpages.

The design concept called "selective transclusion", which is used for migrating excerpts (moving them to the base page), does so by displaying part of an article the same as a template. An added benefit of this is that it also keeps them fresh, by always showing the current version of the content that is transcluded.

We are also working on ways to make excerpted content, and listed entries, dynamic, so that the material or links shown automatically change over time without the intervention of an editor. Selected articles, could be set up to change daily, for example, to present a different article each day. This can even be made to show a different article every time a user visits the page. Currently, we can do this from a set list. We're trying to make it so that the list is updated automatically from an external source that is regularly maintained.

Other automated solutions are being sought or developed for each section type of portals. To automatically update and archive news, did you know entries, and so on.

Once we get a fully automated design worked out, it will be applied to all the portals that do not have dedicated maintainers. This will reduce the amount of maintenance they need. A single editor will then be able to watch over far more portals than before, ideally, with each portal taking up only a single page in portal space.

The Portal WikiProject is dedicated to updating, upgrading, and maintaining the entire portal system and every portal in it.

Come check us out, and if you like what you see, feel free to join. &mdash; The Transhumanist  05:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much
The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,  &mdash; The Transhumanist   00:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please ping me. Thank you. -TT

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hjort Trench has been accepted
 Hjort Trench, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Gpkp ( u • t • c ) 15:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Hjort_Trench help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Schmerling Caves
Hi Elriana--I translated this from the French wiki; any help in cleaning it up would be welcome. Also, I saw your name in the history of List of fossil sites, and I can't rightly figure out where to list this, the site of the Neanderthal fossil Engis 2. If you can stick it in there, that would be great. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your edits there--and now I'd like to ask the same thing for Arago cave, which was translated from the French version by . Thanks for whatever you can do...! Dr Aaij (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)