User talk:Mikenorton/Archive 3

Haha - and hohoho

The ship never sails - a few earthquakes have been and gone in more than one way - but help and assistance on some issues is always welcome even years down the line - the time issue here is that a day seems like a long time for somethings on wp - a year - nothing :) - have a very good christmas and best wishes to you sir! SatuSuro 01:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Extinction Event

Mike, His intructions (to me) were to reboot the request. I did and removed his comments in the process of a reboot. You have added confusion and undue bias to others. Morbas (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Morbas, those were two different editors - Viriditas suggested that you 'reboot' your request, bobrayner just made a comment after you had changed things on the talk page - you are the author of any confusion. Mikenorton (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 1877 Iquique earthquake

The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Bjorøy Tunnel

Thanks for adding the information :) I know very little about geology, so if you want to add more, feel free. The book I've been using is centered around the politics of how the tunnel came to be, so adding anything technical is most appreciated. I'll probably add a section called "specifications" or somethings, and I'll perhaps move anything relevant to there later. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, just saw your here or there note, so I'll answer on my page instead. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cornubian batholith

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Haig Fras

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK hook fact issue

Hello! Your submission of Cornubian batholith‎ 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!

• I reviewed your two articles for DYK and they are both excellent articles with a good hook, but the hook fact is buried and the cite for the hook fact is not clear . If that doesn't pan out for you, you might consider taking a different hook fact just from Cornubian batholith‎, which is a fascinating topic of itself, maybe "... that the Cornubian batholith‎ extrusion was the source of Devon's Bronze Age tin mines?" Sharktopus^talk 05:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sharktopus, I've replied at DYK. I'm hoping to keep the double hook, but I've suggested an alt hook about the gravity anomalies. There is a discussion that I can't get proper access to about the topography of the top of the Haig Fras granite being due to subaerial exposure, similar to the tors on Dartmoor, that would make a good alternative, but I've just about given up getting hold of it. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on the DYK for two good articles! And your later work substantiated the original hook too.Sharktopus^talk 17:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I was really hoping to find out where the name 'Haig Fras' came from as well, but I expect that it's in that rather obscure Smith et al. 1965 ref. I must remember to have a look next time I'm in the Geological Society library. Mikenorton (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Frazil ice in Yosemite video

I was thinking about your granitic intrusions when I saw this much-viewed video of frazil ice creating dikes that re-route the liquid flow. The narrator mentioned that it is similar to what lava does, so I thought it might interest you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V9p4mFEYXc Sharktopus^talk 17:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool indeed, thanks Sharktopus. Mikenorton (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

1992 Cairo earthquake

Hi. I rerated the article as start-class. Best wishes. --Meno25 (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

2011-02 Silly question

Hello. Do you know one or more User with a good knowledge of structural geology and a good knowledge of french language? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You could try User:Rudolf Pohl, who I think should fit your requirements. Mikenorton (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Galilee (ship)

Hello! Your submission of Galilee (ship) 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! Kirk (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Galilee (ship)

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Matthew Turner (shipbuilder)

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 551 Beirut earthquake

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Sendai Earthquake

Hi Mikenorton, you're help is needed and much appreciated in the discussion on 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami#magnitude?. I remember you calling on a source that said 9.1 Mw. If you'd like, you can bring this in the discussion on the aforementioned page. Again, you're help is very much needed and appreciated. Many thanks in adnvance, Ρόμπστερ 1983 ^{☞Life's short, talk fast ☜} 20:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Answered on the talk page. Mikenorton (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

earthquake articles

Hi Mike, thanks for your note. I'm not sure I can convince you of the need to reorganise your earthquake articles, and quite agree that 'seismology' seems a more appropriate heading for much of the information. However, having worked on a couple of earthquake articles recently, I've had other editors change the headings on the basis of an "established format". WP:QUAKE doesn't seem to specify it, but a random sample of FA and major earthquake articles does seem to provide some consensus. As a rather casual editor of earthquake articles, I've just gone along with it. I only popped into the 1978 Miyagi earthquake article to transfer some information someone had added to peak ground acceleration and thought to tidy it up, merging the small sections and applying the heading I was told was de rigueur at the moment. Change it back if you like. Gwinva (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Tsunami

Of course it could. As they say, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The current version, ironically, is the real violation of CRYSTAL. Egg Centric 17:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mikenorton. You have new messages at Egg Centric's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for 869 Sanriku earthquake and tsunami

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

1953 Suva earthquake DYK

Your DYK nom for 1953 Suva earthquake looks OK but please consider using page numbers for your sources to make it easier to source your hook. You can still use the refname function by combining it with Template:Rp. You can see this in practice in the body sections of Republic of China – South Africa relations. Thanks and good article. —  AjaxSmack  01:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try to remember that in future. Mikenorton (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yellowstone National Park

Hello, please don't remove sections that are supported by reliable sources : ). I added 4 sources. All or some of them are reliable sources. Have a nice day : ) Lkmen (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a quick look and none of them are reliable sources - other wikis are not allowed and the Quran is not a reliable source for anything to do with science. Mikenorton (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

1. A quick look is NOT enough. 2. That section that I added is NOT about science. It is about Yellowstone in Islam and the beliefs of Muslims. So, Qur'an is a reliable source here. Lkmen (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

A quick look was plenty, if this is a common belief in Islam than there will be plenty of secondary sources covering it, so use them. Mikenorton (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there isn't any rule in WP against such a thing. It is very informative section for any reader. It is important for any reader about Yellowstone to know what religions or cultures say about it. I supported that section by 1 reliable source at least for anyone wants to know what Islam says about Yellowstone by supporting it with Qur'an. And Qur'an is a reliable source in WP about the view of Islam on any subject, ether it is geographical subject or something else. So, I hope you will help WP by bringing that section back and protecting it against any vandalism if you can do so. Or you may talk to someone who can. I am waiting for your help for WP. Have a nice day. : ) Lkmen (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Biogeosciences

Hello, Biogeosciences http://www.biogeosciences.net/volumes_and_issues.html is under CC-BY license. I think you will like probably articles about Lake Ohrid http://www.biogeosciences.net/7/3377/2010/bg-7-3377-2010.html Have a nice day. --Snek01 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice paper, and actually relevant to something I'm working on in the 'real world', thanks. Mikenorton (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

took the time to write this

This man correctly predicted the Sendai Earthquake. He guessed March 8th, 7.8 Magnitude in the area where it hit. On March 9th there was a 7.2, then, of course, on March 11th there was a 9.0. Now you can't tell me there's no correlation there. http://www.garagegames.com/community/blogs/view/15946/23#comment_form

He believes the next large earthquake will be in Macquarie Island in Australia within the next week. He also predicted the Gulf of California earthquake last week, and Earthquakes in California, one in Southern California about 20 miles North of San Onofre Nuclear Power Station and another off the coast of Santa Barbara later next month, both of which are related to the earthquakes that hit the state in 1812. Ngrant5 (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Ngrant5

You would need a long track record to claime any success in the field of earthquake prediction. There are lots of people out there making predictions, some inevitably come close to matching real events. No-one has yet convincingly shown that they can separate the signal from the noise and that is why any such claims remain 'fringe' until they start turning up in reliable sources. Mikenorton (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Focal Mechanism

Hello Mikenorton: As requested by you, I am offering here comments on the article on "Focal mechanism". The comments are detailed and specific. I prefer that you make those changes you see as useful yourself because I do not want to mess up your article. I have indicated places where refs should be included and where links would be appropriate. If you decide to use these passages, I will look them up and insert them.

Some comments on the article “Focal mechanism” in Wikipedia

1) I stumbled over the expression “inelastic deformation” in the first sentence. The image in my head of Reid’s rebound theory sees the volume of rock on the two sides snap elastically into a (partially) relaxed state. I would be more comfortable, if you simply dropped the word “inelastic”, or is it important to you for some reason?

2) ” Earthquakes not caused by fault movement”? I hardly ever think of those because they are a bit special. Might the reader be puzzled by this statement and at a loss what you are thinking of? Perhaps one could give the reader information about what you are thinking of and amplify the contrast to explosions a bit. The following is my suggestion for a re-write of the paragraph starting with “Earthquakes not caused”.

Earthquakes caused by intrusion of magma into cracks beneath volcanoes have a different pattern of energy release, referred to as a non-double-couple solution. In mine blasts and underground nuclear explosions the first motions of waves are pointing away from the source in all directions. Thus, there are no implosive quadrants as in the diagram at right, with first motions toward the source. In the case of explosions, the seismic moment tensor is called isotropic and this difference allows such explosions to be easily discriminated from their seismic response. This is an important part of monitoring to discriminate between earthquakes and explosions for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

3) The text in the diagrams is so small that it is hard to read (at least for me). Some of the arrows will probably not be noticed by readers who don’t know that they should be there.

4) The paragraph starting with “The data for an earthquake is” is too long for my taste, and probably hard to digest for the reader. I recommend breaking it into paragraphs.

5) “The data for an earthquake is”. For me, “data” is still a plural. The sentence should read “The data for an earthquake are”.

6) The passage “The P and T axes are also often plotted; with the N axis these three directions respectively match the directions of the maximum, minimum and intermediate principle compressive stresses associated with the earthquake” is not correct. I think that estimating the ‘true’ directions of principal stress is an important and complex problem, requiring perhaps its own paragraph as follows.

Estimating the elusive stress directions The bisectrices of the implosive and the explosive quadrants are called the P- and T-axes, respectively, for pressure and tension. They are sometime assumed in a first order approximation to be the direction of the principal stresses responsible for the slip on the fault. However, if the fault plane is weak, one could imagine it as slippery, then a force pushing in the direction of slip but at almost any angle with respect to the fault plane could be responsible for the rupture. This is the same as saying that a book can be pushed across a desk with a hand oriented almost parallel to the table or almost perpendicular.

The ‘true’ directions of the largest, σ1, and least, σ3, principal stresses can be estimated approximately in most seismogenic volumes by a technique called stress tensor inversion. Generally, seismogenic volumes are riddled with faults of many orientations, which have been created by various geologic processes during the past. When such a volume is subjected to the currently active tectonic stress, all of these faults may fail and produce earthquakes because they are zones of weakness. Whereas each earthquake defines a whole quadrant as the possible location for the direction of σ1 and σ3, parts of this quadrant will be incompatible with the quadrants defined by other earthquakes. In this way, the ‘true’ directions of σ1 and σ3 can be determined to within a few degrees, if the number of fault plane solutions is adequate (more than 20) and the orientation of the available fault planes is varied enough. Computer algorithms for stress tensor inversions differ in the way they find a best fit to a given data set of fault plane solutions .

This inversion technique assumes that the stress tensor is uniform throughout the volume from which the earthquakes are selected. If this is not the case, the misfit of the inversion is large. In that case, one subdivides the volume that contains the earthquakes until one finds sub-sets of the data that yield misfits so small that they can stem from the uncertainties in the fault plane orientations of the input data. Using this technique, the variation of the stress tensor orientations in the Earth can be defined.

Variations of the stress orientation along major faults can define fault segments. Plotting the misfit angle of individual earthquakes which occur along the San Andreas fault assuming a random stress tensor orientation, it was found the misfits are nearly constant within segments, but differ strongly from segment to segment.

7) I think some readers could use a hint on where to look for data. How about the following?

Data sources Most advanced seismological observatories generate catalogs of focal mechanisms. For the world, the Harvard [[]] and the USGS [[]] moment tensor catalogs are the best sources. Being based on teleseismic data the magnitudes of the included events are usually larger than 5.5. Regional and local seismograph networks generate fault plane solutions for earthquakes with magnitudes down to M1 (California, Japan, Taiwan, Iceland, etc). Some seismological observatories offer distribution of fault plane solutions in near-real time by email[[]].

PS: Would you prefer that I send you these texts by email formatted better?

Maxwyss (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

NB: I am not competent to help with the other article (I think it's called supper shear)Maxwyss (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

Thank you so much Max, I will work through your comments when I get some time. Replying here is fine. Mikenorton (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a couple of paragraphs at the end of the discussion on focal mechs. I hope you find them interesting.Maxwyss (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)MaxWyss

Thanks again, looks good. I'm currently trying to write a paper, so I'm a bit pushed for time at the moment (what with the day job as well), I've kept my co-author waiting long enough. Mikenorton (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 1953 Suva earthquake

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the nomination and the expansion for this article. Qrfqr (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)