User talk:Mikenorton/Archive 1

Hi!
I saw your message about the vandalism on Fossil Fuels thing. Omg I can't believe I forgot there was such a thing as reverting to the last clean copy. Smart!! :)

Thebestkind (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Anytime
Dont let me even say what some parts of this place are like - its good to see some good hard rock stuff (scuse the attempt at pun). I used to work (for a short time) at Mt Lyell in Tasmania and used to think - if these guys (the geols I was assistant to) only spent about three or four years at uni - I could do that too! Funny, I somehow got distracted on the way and got very intrigued by Mount Merapi, Krakatoa and Tambora in Indonesia - and distracted again ended up doing work on a Royal graveyard in Java Indonesia! Anyways - the rock issue for me in the near future (seeing that I keep referring to it but not writing it up) is Mount Read Volcanics - west coast tas - enough said, trust you enjoy your time doing wiki things! SatuSuro 23:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Shear Sense
Hi Mikenorton, my structural Geology Professor gave me the order, to get into the structural geology stuff inside of wikipedia, wright some articles and of course try to improve some articles. I've heard several lectures and took place in some workshops and fieldtrips, but I'm still a studend :-)! So please forgive my overhasty correction of your description.

I had a talk with another structural geology professor about that picture. He was sure, that the vein was precipitated pretectonic. The competence contrast led to the asymetric boudinage. It looks like a shearband boudin (from passchier&trouw:microtectonics) showing a strain fringe (dissolution-precipitation). I would like to stay in contact.

In this special case and other cases we have a really good image archive of structural features, which would really improve the articles. I will upload few on my own webspace and send you the links! EndoMax 09:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Our archive also provides a huge number of interpreted thin-section fotographs! EndoMax 09:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oil shale
Hi Mikenorton. You are listed as a participant in WikiProject Geology. Maybe you to please consider helping to improve the oil shale article. This article has developed quite well, but some more expert assistance is needed. Thank you in advance. Beagel 17:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wackestone
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wackestone, and it appears to be a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 12:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

State geological article requests
Hi. I honestly expected wikipedia to have full detailed articles on Geology by state e.g Geology of California or Geology of Utah. I'm not even from the States but I had fully expected a detailed article on each state. Some of the American geological articles are very poor or non existent see Basic geologic features of each state. PLease could your project aim to start these articles and develop them. All the best and thanks  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 13:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that people think in terms of states, but I prefer to have articles by geologic feature, so that their would be one article on the Rocky Mountains, and not seven, e.g. Rocky Mts in Wyoming etc, one article on Basin and Range Province and not four or five. This is also true in the eastern U.S. where state boundaries are often slightly more related to topography, but still usually unrelated to the geology.  I would expect a state geographical section, or article, to refer to the appropriate geological features which would then have there own articles.  --Bejnar 15:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Cooperation on microscope pictures
Just writte here if you need any other pictures, just say me. More is there --Chmee2 (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Subduction graphic
Graphic looks excellent ClimberDave (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Honister green slate1.gif
Thank you for uploading Image:Honister green slate1.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 09:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hemispherical projection
Hi, Mike. You and I briefly discussed collaborating on a new article on the equal-area hemispherical projection. I have started a draft at User:Joshuardavis/Hemispherical projection. If you are still interested, feel free to edit that article where it is. (Or we can move it to neutral territory, if you prefer.) Some points: Please let me know what you think, here if you like. Joshua R. Davis (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the title should be. I chose this one, so that we could treat equal-angle and equal-area together. I would have stereonet, Schmidt net, etc. all redirect to this article. I suspect that Wulff net should be merged into this article, but let's not jump the gun --- maybe we will end up with enough material for multiple articles?
 * On the other hand, should this article be merged into Pole figure? I don't know the terminology exactly; does "pole figure" refer only to equal-angle projection?
 * I intend to make graphics for Wulff and Schmidt nets, put them in, and discuss how to use them. More graphics are needed throughout.
 * The applications section is barely-existent, as you'll see. I was hoping you'd have a lot to say here. Some of the material could be taken from Stereographic projection.


 * Well Joshua, I'm glad you're doing the maths. It's not entirely beyond me, but it would take a long time to get my head around it. The draft looks like an excellent first go at it. I'll try to find some time to add to it over the next week. A gentle reminder here would not be amiss if nothing turns up from me by next Thursday. Mikenorton 23:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, again, Mike. Yesterday I discovered the common name for the equal-area hemispherical projection: Lambert azimuthal equal-area projection. My new plan is to treat the equal-area/Schmidt stuff there (I've already expanded it a lot) and the equal-angle/Wulff stuff in Stereographic projection. Then there is no need for any new article. (I also think Wulff net and maybe Pole figure can be absorbed into Stereographic projection.) Your help is still appreciated. Joshua R. Davis (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Blake Basin

Thought I'd drop you a note after reverting your edit to Oceanic trench. I'm not quite sure how to classify Blake Basin. It probably represents remnant topography from the break-up of Pangaea during the Jurassic. I've not been able to find much on the underlying geology that can provide a useable source to help expand the article. It should probably be classified along with rift/break-up related bathymmetric features such as the Faeroe-Shetland Trough and Rockall Trough. The Blake Ridge is probably underlain by thinned continental crust similar to the Faeroe Ridge and Rockall Plateau. I'm not going to add anything at the moment as it would be mainly OR, but I will keep on looking. Mikenorton (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Blake Basin
Thought I'd drop you a note after reverting your edit to Oceanic trench. I'm not quite sure how to classify Blake Basin. It probably represents remnant topography from the break-up of Pangaea during the Jurassic. I've not been able to find much on the underlying geology that can provide a useable source to help expand the article. It should probably be classified along with rift/break-up related bathymmetric features such as the Faeroe-Shetland Trough and Rockall Trough. The Blake Ridge is probably underlain by thinned continental crust similar to the Faeroe Ridge and Rockall Plateau. I'm not going to add anything at the moment as it would be mainly OR, but I will keep on looking. Mikenorton (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me. WikiP would appreciate your help, I am sure. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Monocline
Hey you wrote something on my talk page, and I was trying to put some info down for monoclines but I couldn't figure it out. Can you help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monocline310 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

nice article
I'm glad you got that page up and running. It all looks good, but some of the formations are a little unclear, even with the diagrams...also I don't know how to put pictures up with copyrights and all, but you should look at the waterpocket fold in Utah or you can also look at almost any part of Arizona on google earth and see them streaking across the state! Monocline310 (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)]

Geology of the British Isles
Hi Mike, I see you moved my footnote comments about 'bedrock' and 'superficial' into the main body of the article. I originally added it in this form as a half-baked dither about removing this digression altogether. The article is about the geology of the British Isles, not about the terminology of (unnamed) BGS maps of the same. It is not really clear to me why there is a section headed 'Seismographical Results' with subsections 'Bedrock' and 'Deposits by glaciers'. Only the first sentence of the first paragraph here is really anything to do with seismographic results, and of course the superficial geology includes a great deal of material other than that deposited by glaciers: river gravels, 'alluvium', dunes, loess, head, peat etc. Even much 'glacial' material is of distinctly mixed fluvio/glacial origin. I feel this whole section of the article should really be rewritten. Pterre (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike
Remember me Michel: Devon/Solund: University of Bergen

PETRSCIENT (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

65.38.12.120 (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

focal mechanism
I took a pass at it. The distinctions between moment tensors, moment, double couples, and beach balls are a bit hard to explain, and the fact that only P and not S wave mechanisms so far are discussed maybe should be corrected.John (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

lol
As I think my past record proves, I will be able to continue editing and vandalising for as long as I wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.80.45 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Macocha
Hello. I can see that you are interested in geology, so I thought you might help me to find a better name for the article Macocha Gorge.

It is a geological feature in the Moravian Karst in the Czech Republic and its Czech name is Propast Macocha. The problem is that it is not a gorge, but I do not know, how to call it in English in a better way. It is a huge hole in the ground, which formed after a big underground cave collapsed.

Sometimes I also hear it is translated as "Macocha Abyss" into English, but I did not find any source, confirming that "abyss" is used for this sort of geological formation. Wikipedia knows just abyssal zone and abyssal plain, which are connected with sea bottom. My Czech-English dictionary suggests also the word "chasm", but when I tried to find it in Wikipedia, I was redirected to "rift", which is also something different.

Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your answer. However, I think that sinkhole is not the correct term, because these are formed by water erosion. You wrote that the French term gouffre describes a thing formed when a roof of a cavern collapses, which is exactly what I need, but unfortunately it is not an English term. Meanwhile I found article Padirac Cave, where they call it "chasm". Is it possible to use it? If this is correct, it would mean that it is a nonsense to redirect chasm to the article rift, as it is done now. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarification. I think you are right that the meaning of the term "sinkhole" is probably the nearest to the terms "propast" or "gouffre", although it is much more general (propast can be formed only when a roof of a cavern collapses). Therefore I will probably use the term in the article. I also tried Google, which unfortunately found just one example of collocation of this term with Macocha and therefore I think it will be better to name the article "Macocha Abyss", which seems much more common in English, and to use the term sinkhole only in the definition.

If you think it is not a good solution, please let me know. Thank you for your help. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Mesoplates
Mikenorton:

Thanks for your comments on  Mesoplates.

Feel free to edit for format and clarity. I'll attempt to answer any questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexpilger (talk • contribs) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale geology
Hi, Mike. I am going to nominate the Oil shale geology article for the GAN. However, I think this article probably needs some more editing and improvement before the nomination. Maybe you are interested to take a look on this article? Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I nominated the Oil shale geology article for the GAN. You are welcome to comment and improve this article. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Rift lakes
I replied on my talk page. --Black Tusk (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Silverdine
Hello, thanks for responding for my request about Silverdine! i'll remove the request!Killemall22 (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

do you think it is possible to have people who misspell it the way i did redirect to the actual article?Killemall22 (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You are invited...
to join the Earthquakes Wiki! Any questions can be directed to my talk page. -- Meldshal  (§peak to me)  14:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to know
Since you are a member of WikiProject Earthquakes, you may wish to know about this. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fault-block mountain and fault-block
Can these both refer to undersea ridges? I was looking at a red link, fault-block ridge, and wondered if a link to fault-block would be correct. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Earthquakes Newsletter (August 2008)

 * Newsletter delivery by -- Lord   ₪   Sunday   20:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

September Newsletter
The September version of the WikiProject Earthquakes newsletter has been posted! Be sure to check it out! &mdash; Ceran  thor  [Formerly LordSunday] 14:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Silicon dioxide
Thanks for the useful dicussion- and the subsequent improvements to silicon dioxide and yes you are quite right about the silex derivation, I was being word blind!--Axiosaurus (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Earthquakes Newsletter
Be sure to check out the October version of the WikiProject Earthquakes Newsletter for updates and news. Thanks, &mdash;  Ceranthor   ( Sing ) 23:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK!
Use some of your new articles as DYKs. It's a great way to collab., please participate with 1855 Wairarapa earthquake. '''Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 21:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you allow me to nominate it? '''Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 11:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've nominated it. Thanks for your contribution! '''Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a cite for the most powerful earthquake in New Zealand? &mdash;Ceran (sing / see) 13:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.teara.govt.nz/EarthSeaAndSky/NaturalHazardsAndDisasters/HistoricEarthquakes/3/en this link uses the words, "most powerful ever recorded in New Zealand", although perhaps recorded is ambiguous as it obviously wasn't recorded instrumentally, I take this to mean in recorded (i.e. written) history. Mikenorton (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and congrats. &mdash;Ceran (sing / see) 17:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Earthquake location images
Hi Mike,

Rather than generate a new graphic showing the epicentre of an earthquake, have you thought of using the Location Map template, but with your own epicentre graphic (red concentric rings) as the marker? This works for any country - just upload your epicentre graphic to Commons, and then use the Location Map template, substituting your own "mark" and "marksize". See Template:Location map for more info.

Cheers - Gobeirne (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again - I've altered the earthquake template to allow that kind of map. Use "map2" instead of "map". Cheers - Gobeirne (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Geology of Cornwall
Hi Mike, I have contributed a sketch map to the article Geology of Cornwall which, as a geologist, you might care to check for accuracy (it is intended only as a very basic outline map}.

Also, I have added two of my photographs to the article - are my captions adequate? If you have any comments, please reply on my Talk page. Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also uploaded a second map. You can find it on my my Talk page. Again, I'd be grateful if you could give it the once-over before it is deployed. Ta Andy F (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, Mike. Let me know when you've had a chance to confirm. One question though - when you say "... the granite between the Land's End and St Austell masses it's the Tregonning-Godolphin Granite..." do you mean the mass south of Carn Brea? Is this not also known as the Carnmellis granite? If so, which name should prevail? Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Mike, thanks very much for your advice. I've changed the photo in the article Geology of Cornwall from my Crackington (Pencarrow) pic to the photo of chevron folds at Millook as you suggested. Thanks, too, for clarifying the location of the Tregonning-Godolphin Granite - I should've known that as there is an NT property at Godolphin.


 * Also, ta for pointing out the mis-spelling of 'Carnmenellis'. Damn! BTW, I'm never sure whether to include the apostrophe in Lands (Land's) End.


 * I'll take another look at the distribution of basalt and greenstone. Your further guidance would be much appreciated - I'm not a geologist. The main source was this map published by University of Southampton: http://www.soton.ac.uk/~imw/jpg/wcornwa.jpg  Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * PS I have now re-labelled the granites map as you suggested - have a look on my talk page. Cheers Andy F (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I've revised the granite-and-mafric map - it's on my talk page. Please take a look and leave any comments there. I've yet to include mafric rock on the Lizard - not sure what to include there as the geology's complexity on the peninsular is beyond me. Cheers, Andy F (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta, Mike. I will incorporate your changes then redo the labels on my hi-res version (the labels you saw were cut'n'pasted from the earlier version). I will then upload the revision, we can have a last look, then it can go on the Geology of Cornwall page and to Commons. Oh BTW, I didn't think of trying the HTML break tag with 'clear=all' so thanks for alerting me to it. Best as always, Andy F (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Mike, I've incorporated your revisions and added clearer text labels. Have a look and let me know. Andy F (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, Mike, I've now added the second map to Geology of Cornwall. Should we delete the temporary ones? If so, how do I do that? Andy F (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mike, thanks for your reply re deletions: I shall investigate but there's no rush. Thank you very much indeed for all your help with the maps - I am sure I'll be doing more and your advice will be very gratefully accepted. All the best, Andy F (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I've simplified the map of The Lizard (for poss inclusion in Geology of Cornwall and Lizard complex. Please will you have a look and let me know if it is accurate. Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, Mike - thanks very much. Map now ready to deploy. Cheers Andy F (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Newton's Coat of Arms
Hello. To be sure to receive an answer (the person that removed my CoA didn't answer yet), I write here. An article about a person is an obvious place for person's Coat of Arms, isn't it? Best regards. Einfall (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I shall rise the question on the discussion page. Einfall (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Lizard
No problem - I like what you are doing, and very much appreciate it. DuncanHill (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think what you are doing is probably as clear as it can be made for a non-technical reader. Of course, while my knowledge of the complex itself is rather limited, I do have enough of a background in geology to be unfazed by technical terms - I suppose that as long as they are wikilinked there should be no problem. DuncanHill (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Fumarole
Thanks for the feedback Dr Norton, I must confess that my skills at wiki-formatting need to be brought up to your par (is that the phrase?) À la prochaine, Salut! Calixte (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Calixte

Hey
My attention was drawn to this revert by the edit summary "rvv" which I understood to mean "revert vandalism". The edits in question were, however, test edits rather than "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". For future reverts like this, would you consider using a summary such as "rv test" instead? Thanks in advance,  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 23:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

DYk, again
I've nominated 1848 Marlborough earthquake for DYK, again. You'll be credited as the creator, and I as the nominator (you get more credit). ;) Ceran →// forge 18:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot
Hey. Thanks for your comment about the bot :). Is there any chance you could put something similar on this page? Thanks  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 09:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted one of the links. You can't just add links, and give the reader no knowledge of why the links are created, you have to give enough text in both articles that the reader understands, when they click on the see also, why they should have also seen that.  Also, it seems rather undue weight on the Gulf of Mexico page, without some explanation as to just how many different mini basins there are in there area, and an explanation of its name would have been far more useful and interesting to the lay reader of an encyclopedia.  When links take precedence over content, no one is well served.  --KP Botany (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Stalked?" That's pretty funny.  A little ownership going on.  Guess what?  I didn't do or undo anything because I was annoyed.  You don't seem to be reading my posts or the edits or anything particularly well.  The articles aren't yours.  I'm not editing based on your intentions.  You don't seem to mind being "spurred" on by a bot, so why so irritated that another editor edits?  --KP Botany (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I went and checked out the article you provided a link to as an example? You do realize this don't you?  That the reason I checked the article, not your contributions history, by the way, is that you mentioned the article and its links that you added.  I merely clicked on "what links here" at the article, after clicking on the link in your post.
 * I would like to just edit articles. But I'm not.  I'm responding to Addbot's owner.  --KP Botany (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Geology
Here's your requested prod. Any issues you see that need resolving? Awickert (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 1848 Marlborough earthquake
Shubinator (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Plan on submitting 1843 Wanganui earthquake at DYK? I've been working on Iranian quakes lately. Ceran thor 20:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not mark significant edits and reversions as minor edits
Please do not mark significant edits and reversions as minor edits as you did in the Subduction article. I'm sure you are aware this is against the spirit of Wikipedia. Also please use edit summaries. I would suggest discussing your concerns on article pages rather than reverting with no commentary. Sophergeo (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Medium- to large-scale deformation
Hi Mike, Thanks for fixing my sloppy move of Fold and thrust belt. I just created a stub on Thick-skinned deformation and was thinking of making a parallel one on Thin-skinned deformation, but I'm wondering if it's too specific. Since you edit a lot of structure articles, do you know of a good place to put info on medium- to large-scale structural deformation, such as thin- and thick-skinned deformation, decollements, fault-bend folds, etc? (Things that would be stubs on their own, otherwise.) Or do you think it's better to have a bunch of stubs on these individual topics? Thanks, Awickert (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see your comment right away. Thanks for the work - it looks much, much better than it was before. Awickert (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

re: List of recent earthquakes
Hi Mike, no problem, I think we'll keep the 'List of recent earthquakes' name for now, but think about renaming it at some point in the future. As far as the List of earthquakes is concerned I was thinking that the USGS significant list should be removed as you say, and simply replaced with links to the other lists, including the lists of earthquakes by country and the two top ten lists. The current title 'List of earthquakes' can stay for now. RapidR (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Earthquakes in the Levant
I see that you are interested in earthquakes. I am more interested in their impact on archaeological sites, historic buildings and populations. I recently added Galilee earthquake of 1837, Golan earthquake of 749]], and the Near East earthquake of 1759 - the last had the same footprint as the Syrian earthquake you recently added an article about. The ones I added all need a great deal of work, especially geological information. I do think naming is an issue. earthquakes are rarely confined within the borders of a single small country. The ones in the Rift Valley never are. You might consider renaming to something like ''Near East earthquake of 1202, which is what at tleast one scholarly publication used. I do admire your work adding these important events.Historicist (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The epicenter makes a good deal of sense.  Feel free to move my articles in those cases where someone has figured out where the epicenter was.  It may, of course, be difficult to name a country if the epicenter turns out to have been in, say, the Judean hills.Historicist (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Leonardite page
Excellent, thanks much. I was reading about oil well drilling. - Dougher (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Earthquakes Project Newsletter
The WikiProject Earthquakes newsletter for September 2009 has been released. Be sure to check on our status.  ceran  thor 11:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
I've noticed that you do quite a bit of vandalism reversion manually or with undo. Seems rollback would make it easier for you - one click reverting. Let me know here if you want rollback rights and I'll make the change. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been a little unsure about applying for rollback in the past, but I can see that one click reverting would make life easier, so I would like to give it a try, thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You've got it. And I understand your uncertainty, the rollback button sometimes "makes it too easy" and there have been a few times when I've clicked it by mistake or worse, when I haven't checked thigs out well enough. Hopefully I've caught them all and gone back with a follow-up edit of explanation. Your statement of being unsure tells me that you will use with caution. Vsmith (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I plan to start by using rollback only when I have plenty of time and the situation (i.e. blatant vandalism) is completely clear and I'll see how that goes. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Back at you
Could you check my edits to Fissility (geology) that make it include metamorphics? It's also related to the great cleavage debate. Awickert (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * After all the reading round I did for the cleavage article, I'm resigned to the use of foliation as an umbrella term, so no problems with your edit (apart from the foliation link itself of course :-)). Mikenorton (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I did add Cleavage (geology) to the see also :). But I have discovered a new cause for confrontation: you don't use the serial comma, argh! Awickert (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not something that I'm going to fight about, I won't use it, but I won't change it if others do. Don't know if you know anything about contourites but I've just created a page and would be grateful if you gave it the once-over. I've looked at lots of them on seismic data, so I've been trying to keep away from OR. Another article where just one decent seismic profile would help enormously. Mikenorton (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Et in Orcadia ego
I have been revamping Orkney and nicked a few refs from the excellent "Geology of.." you started. There is an interesting para that begins "The Lower Old Red Sandstone is represented by well-bedded flagstones.." that I have no kind of reference for and would like to keep - assuming of course that it is verifiable. Any help much appreciated. Ben  Mac  Dui  18:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Macdui, I noticed your steady progression through Orkney and I was thinking that it was about time that I summarised the 'Geology of' article. Well seeing as you've already made good start, maybe I'll confine myself to going through it after you're done. As to the 'Lower Old Red' being well-bedded flagstones, I'm afraid that has to go; the only Lower Old Red as now understood is the Hara Ebb Formation and the Yesnaby Sandstone, both forming rather small outcrops on the west coast of Mainland. The original text is apparently referring to both the Stromness and Rousay flagstones (as they extend over most of the islands and are faulted against the Eday sandstone across the North Scapa Fault on the north side of Scapa Flow) which are definitely 'Middle Old Red', it must be a pretty ancient bit of text to say that, pre 1930s at least. The phrase works as a description of the Middle Old Red I suppose, including the passage up into the Eday group. If you would rather leave it to me, I don't mind trying to sort it out. Mikenorton (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, had a go. Not quite such nice language, but at least it matches current knowledge now, more or less. Mikenorton (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's great - many thanks. Ben   Mac  Dui  18:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

110 AD earthquake
Hi Mike! Yes, those are direct quotes from the articles which I included in my draft annotated translation of the Weilüe at. Unfortunately, it seems that both links I gave there have gone dead in the meantime - thanks for pointing this out. Would you mind making the link? It would be nice if someone else did it. Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your note and I am really pleased to find someone so interested in this earthquake. Yes, I keep my eyes peeled all the time for more info - but I haven't seen anything new since those reports. If I do find something I will let you know - and please do the same for me if you come across anything of interest. Cheers and best wishes, John Hill (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 1703 Apennine earthquakes
Hello! Your submission of 1703 Apennine earthquakes 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! r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on DYK page.Mikenorton (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Angadipuram Laterites
Hi! Dr Mikenorton,

Please have a look at this draft article at User:Nvvchar/sandbox/Miscel.. I would appreciate your editing it as appropriate, and nominating it on DYK with a suitable hook. Pl let me know so that I can transfer the artcile to mainspace. I will also suggest a hook after knowing your views. Thanks.--Nvvchar (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the editing. History section can be deleted also, except for the second sentence, which probably could be included under section on 'Structure'. I can't find extra material to expand the history section. Best wishes--Nvvchar (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * History section has been deleted and one sentence shifted to Section on 'Structure'. My suggestion for DYK Hook --- that in 1807, Dr [Francis Buchanan-Hamilton]], a professional surgeon of Scotland gave a first account of the Angadipuram Laterite (pictured) in India by terming it indurated clay suited for building construction?--Nvvchar (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The second and the third alternative hooks suggested by you are very good. Shall I move the artcile to the main space?--Nvvchar (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have moved the article Angadipuram Laterite to main space. Please nominate it on DYK with the suggested two Hooks. Thanks. --Nvvchar (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note the spelling of Laterite. It is witout a 's'. Thanks--Nvvchar (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can we put an image, which is in the infobox? May I also request you to have a look at the Yana, India article, which is stuck at the bottom of the DYK page? I have done improvements twice but it has not been cleared.Regards.--Nvvchar (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying reviewers observations on DYK. I saw in just now.I am now visiting my daughter in USA.--Nvvchar (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings!
Greetings Mikenorton. Have you considered applying for autoreviewer "status"? Basically what it means is that your newly created pages get automatically marked as good and don't show up as needing human examination on Special:Newpages. You can actually apply for it yourself, but I reckon it's probably easier - probably loads of Wikipedia bureacracy involved - if I get the editor who granted me the rights to do so for you, too. I thought I'd ask you first if you were interested. Let me know if you have any questions... and keep up the good work! Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Way I see it is that Wikipedia guidelines are open to interpretation and leave loads o' room for flexibility, especially for quality edits which can only lead to a better Wikipedia. I take it that your reply is affirmative, so will put it to the powers-that-be. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ...and done! Shimgray | talk | 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Angadipuram Laterite
Hello! Your submission of Angadipuram Laterite 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! Geraldk (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Cape Ann earthquake
Hey, thanks for adding that infobox. Question for the earthquake expert - while I was looking through other articles about earthquakes, I noticed that most of them were titled (year)(name of earthquake), as in 1755 Lisbon earthquake. Given that, should the Geraldk (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I went ahead and moved it to 1755 Cape Ann Earthquake. I was thinking of nominating it as a good article, which I think it would qualify for with the addition of the infobox and map. Were there any other glaring issues you noticed? My expertise lies more in history than in seismology. Geraldk (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Earthquake articles
Heh, maybe we'll meet in the middle somewhere. Glad to share credit on the DYK - there's no way in heck I could have put those infoboxes in. Would be happy to collaborate. Is there an article on a major earthquake that needs to get up to FA at some point that you're interested in working on? Geraldk (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for adding all of that info to fold (geology). I consider myself a geologist and I learned quite a bit from what you wrote! Thanks also for combating the interwiki bots (I wonder how to tell those to stop), Awickert (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no way of stopping the interwiki bots. On some wiki somewhere, someone has incorrectly linked the architectural term to the geological one and the bots are just doing what they do. If there are only a few iw links, it's feasible to go in change things but once there are languages whose script you can't even read involved, you're basically stuck. I've been reverting this particular change since January. As to the fold article, I was hoping that the section wasn't too incoherent, not even sure if 'Causes' was the right section title. I still need to go through the rest of the page, the mechanism bit is still pretty bad. Mikenorton (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well thank you in any case; I can take a stab at the article as well, but don't know when I'll scrounge up the time. Been a little busy lately. Awickert (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Sunda megathrust
Usually, bot issues credits, and he crashes from time to time. This time, the promoting editor didn't paste your tags into the preparation area and the proomoting admin didn't check it (hard to blame him though). In this case, I wasn't a part of the chain, and my name appeared by a weird quirk (I fixed the queue which put the hook on the main page). Anyway, please be patient and don't hesitate to leave (me) a message - DYK is never ideal, but we fix our mistakes. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By "patience", I actually meant tolerance. Credits should be issued right after the hooks hit the mainpage. If this doesn't happen, leave a message, better at the WT:DYK, as I might be asleep :-) Materialscientist (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for orange bar - I was on the run and forgot to add - it is important to let us know that a mistake happened, as it is often just an indication that other things went wrong (bot crash, etc.). Materialscientist (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

weathering - expansion of water
The following is from Weathering. It seems to me it contains an internal contradiction - or is it saying something subtle and i'm reading it wrongly?


 * Frost disintegration
 * This process can also be called frost shattering, frost-wedging or freeze-thaw weathering. This type of weathering is common in mountain areas where the temperature is around freezing point. Frost induced weathering, although often attributed to the expansion of freezing water captured in cracks, is generally independent of the water-to-ice expansion. It has long been known that moist soils expand or frost heave upon freezing as a result of water migrating along from unfrozen areas via thin films to collect at growing ice lenses. This same phenomena occurs within pore spaces of rocks. They grow larger as they attract liquid water from the surrounding pores. The ice crystal growth weakens the rocks which, in time, break up. The phenomenon is caused by the almost unique property of water in having its greatest density at 4 C, so ice is of greater volume than water at the temperature below 4 C. When water freezes, then it expands and puts its surroundings under intense stress.

Could you clarify?Dankarl (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, the text does rather contradict itself. Probably would be better if the last two sentences were removed. I'll try to find time to check that this really is what happens during frost-shattering but I'm pretty busy with the day-job right now - should have time to have a look over the weekend. Mikenorton (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The current view (well it's been around since the 30's at least) appears to be the capillary/ice crystal growth mechanism described in the bulk of the paragraph that you quoted. In fact there's a lot that needs to rewritten and references added (I'm always amazed how some pages manage to remain unsourced for so long). I'll remove the last two lines and add a ref. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Alpine Fault
Thanks for your update on the Alpine Fault.. very appropriate. Stephen (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, I looked at this when I was doing a bunch of NZ earthquake articles and I remembered it anyway from my MSc lectures from Rick Sibson, where we learnt more than was probably entirely necessary about the Alpine Fault. Mikenorton (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Seismological history of Japan
Hi. Can I tempt you to improve this article? If not, would you be interested in writing articles on earthquake history for the other Asian countries, Seismological history of China in particular? Dr. Blofeld      White cat 10:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look. The title concerns me, the article as it stands is more about seismicity in Japan rather than seismology. I don't promise anything, I'm slowly working my way through the 19th century part of Historical earthquakes, producing articles where there is enough information. This is my main project at the moment. Mikenorton (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oseberg oil field
Hey there. Just a quick note to thank you for your input in the article. Geology data helps. I appreciate it Tuscumbia (talk)15:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tuscumbia, no problem. I had just nominated something at DYK and noticed the Oseberg article just below it. I have no idea if it's feasible to actually achieve the 5x expansion it's been nominated for, but if I find anything else useful, I'll add it in. It could do with a section on the exploration drilling and details of blocks etc. Most of that is probably available from the NPD. I'll have a look if I get time. Cheers Mikenorton (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, thanks. Yes, NPD should have all the data. There is a lot related to Oseberg field which is still not in Wikipedia. I'll try to add more information and new articles as we go along. When you have time, could you also enrich the Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli article too? I think it needs plenty of information. I did my best to add new data but it really requires some geology spice to it :) Tuscumbia (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Global Warming
Explain to me how citing a comment as bad faith is a violation of wiki policy? Manticore55 (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We're actually supposed to WP:AGF. Scattering such remarks about a talk page is just plain unhelpful. Also beware of WP:3RR, you're running pretty close. Mikenorton (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Earthquake articles
No worries - I don't think the Wiki Police are going to be after you for stealing a couple of infoboxes. Just so long as you replace 'em correctly. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User: William M. Connolley
I would like to know what the proper procedure is for complaining about this user, who is a coconspirator in the Climategate controversy and should not be permitted to edit the article under WP rules against such self editing. 97.94.189.111 (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That you'll have to work out for yourself, I have no experience of such a thing but there is no excuse for attacking another editor as you did. Remember there is as yet no proven scandal or conspiracy so it's hard to see how you can show anyone involved, let alone WMC, is a co-conspirator. Mikenorton (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite true, as I said, there is an email by Connolley here: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=763&filename=1167961271.txt in which he is discussing cold 17th century temperatures which he has denied and suppressed in articles here at Wikipedia. He is the Hockey Team's wiki propagandist. That is his job, he gets paid by CRU to do this work. I can't say more about how I know this other than to say I have a source inside the British government who knows what is going on. 97.94.189.111 (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well he doesn't seem to have done a very good job, looking at the Little Ice Age article. Anyway I would rather you continued this elsewhere (wherever it should be), if you want to make some sort of official complaint, although people are unlikely to be impressed by an unnamed source. Mikenorton (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby socks
sorry. Keep the text though it was succinct and good (or did you crib it from an FAQ)? --BozMo talk 15:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh that's OK BozMo, I will keep the text for next time though, thanks (no cribbing AFAIK :-)). Mikenorton (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Global warming
I normally put in such links when I go to a particular article and see that the links in the article is not accessible for the non-involved reader. Try to understand the needs of the general reader, perhaps that of a high school student doing a term paper on the subject. You don't know a great deal about the subject except what you hear on the television news and want more information but you don't want resources to be limited by one or the other side of a point of view.Trilobitealive (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the intention but there are many, many articles on Wikipedia that could appear in the 'see also' section of the Global warming article. The article is already huge, so strenuous attempts are made to keep it within bounds. The CRU e-mail hacking article is included in the 'see also' section of the Global warming controversy article, which is itself linked in the lede of the GW article and again in the 'Debate and Skepticism' section. To include it as one of only three in GW would be undue weight in my view. Mikenorton (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked closer at the article and moved the link to a more appropriate place and added 2 other articles to See also section. This is a huge article as it is and but I don't see any way to cut out links to all the related articles. The general reader doesn't know how to follow all the little pig trails that we make on wikipedia.Trilobitealive (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for removing the vandalism, though at least it was funny, Awickert (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and question
Hey, thanks again for the pictures. Aside from that, are you interested in running for RfA? I expect you know what that means - and you're inherently trustworthy, in addition to other qualities. If you're not familiar, then read over the main page and the various subpages and get back to me if you care to.  ceran  thor 14:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thought Ceranthor, I have no plans to do this in either the near or medium future, but 'never say never'. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's what, NINETEEN DYKs in three months?

 * Thanks RGT, I've run out of steam a bit now but there are still a couple of articles maturing in my sandboxes. Mikenorton (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

G'day
Having only been a GFA (ok that is ambiguous I know) i would have about 10 to fifteen arts that need a real G to check over - would you be willing to review a few? It would be really appreciated - there is no rush - it would be good - as the established Western Australian geologist editor of a few years back is obviously enjoying a wikipedia free life (dont we all?) - no sweat if you would rather not either - happy new year anyways Oh hell you poor thing - I welcomed you as well when you started - oh we are all cursed on this damned place :( SatuSuro 03:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

French "cirques"
Hi, would like your input on Talk:Cirque regarding the use of the term in European geology. I've edited Cirque de Navacelles to remove the uncited glacial connection - and to emphasize the seemingly obvious origin as a cut-off incised meander in a dissected plateau. Problem is that I have no good source to refer to ... so p'raps I'm out on a limb with my observations. Would appreciate if you'd take a look and either support or chop off the limb I'm out on. My inability to read French is a problem. Maybe also help with how to treat the non-glacier useage of cirque in other places, French cirque, Welsh cwm and Israeli makhtesh. Vsmith (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do, my technical French should probably just about hold up. Problem is that there are plenty of cirques, cwms, coombes and corries of glacial origin and equally there are plenty of all of these that are not. Terminology is such a pain sometimes :-(. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I made a suggestion on Talk:Cirque. Not everyone likes using the form "In (particular scientific field) article name ...", but it can solve a lot of problems about usage IMO. I'll take a look at the Cirque de Navacelles article now, at first glance I'm sure that you're right. The french article also refers to it as an entrenched meander, odd that our article has so much more content (although less section headings). Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

List of 20th century earthquakes
Thanks! Baileypalblue (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Geology/geography
Hello, I noticed that you reverted my edit to the categories on Geology of Orkney. I'm not disputing your reason - clearly (looking at your userpage!) you know a lot about geology and I don't know much. I added the category based on the fact that Category:Geology of Scotland is in Category:Geography of Scotland, Category:Geology by country is in Category:Geography by country, etc. It seems to be a widely-used categorisation system. A quick glance shows that some, but not all, of the Geology of ... categories are in the corresponding Geography of ... categories. So... do these all need to be changed? -- Beloved Freak  00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. It's an old battle - the distinction between geology and geography, with most geologists regarding them as related but distinct disciplines with areas of overlap e.g. glaciology and geomorphology, while there are some geographers that view geology as a sub-discipline. I'll raise this at WikiProject Geology and see what others think. I guess that it's not clear what the alternative hierarchy would be - it bears thinking about. Mikenorton (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'm happy to help out with sorting categories, but I'll leave it up to you guys in the know to decide! -- Beloved Freak  10:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Calderas and such
Hi Mike,

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera

Though this is probably faaaaaar more your area of expertise than mine, I would assume that as the definitions I have found of calderas states things like "...Calderas range from a few miles to 37 mi (60 km) in diameter..." and Yellowstone's caldera is actually known to be larger, that gigantic isn't too off the mark as a descriptive. Perhaps it's time for some of these definition sites to update their definitions... :-)

Oh, and no, I did not add that descriptive to the Yellowstone page... (nor am I adding it back - I think it's size, already indicated in the article, speaks for itself). Just figured I'd bring it up in case it becomes an edit war with an anon.

Best, Robert

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 01:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Rob,


 * Yellowstone is big, no doubt, I see values of 80 km x 50 km for Yellowstone, which compares with Lake Taupo - 46 km x 33 km and Lake Toba - 100 km x 30 km, La Garita Caldera - 75 km x 35 km, so it's not exceptional but definitely at the upper end of the size range. The caldera article says that the average diameter of calderas on earth ranges up to 80 km (reference to a volume by Gottman 2008, that Google books won't let me look at :-. I agree that the size speaks for itself - anything that it would take days to hike over is impressively big. Mikenorton (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike,


 * I agree with you... gigantic isn't the right descriptive... sadly it seems some anon disagrees. I'll keep an eye on the page and revert as needed to help you avoid an excessive amount of reverts.


 * Best,
 * Robert


 * RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 17:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Global warming
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 23:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

NCO feedback
Thanks for the feedback. I have a question. If an article is a complete rewrite do the expansion rules still apply. The original was pitifully inaccurate. I stripped it to the bone and started over. Is there some way to indicate this? Also, do I resubmit or make the changes to the existing section? Thanks. JPatterson (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind checking it now. I'm not sure I'm using the tool correctly. I've also changed the hook on the template page. Assuming it's now ok, not sure what to do next. Thanks! JPatterson (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

what do you mean not in the english wp?
88.218.157.132 (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean that on the english wikipedia we delimit numbers as 1,467.24 not 1.467,24. I'm used to the other version, I'm working in Norway at the moment, but the manual of style WP:MOSNUM is clear on this point. Mikenorton (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

something must be done then to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.157.132 (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You can try of course but most of the world that uses english as an official language uses a comma to delimit thousands and a dot to precede the decimal places - see the list of countries here, Decimal separator. This is one those things that divides the world. Mikenorton (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

we have a lot to perfect. CRAZY SCIENTIST (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)