Jump to content

User talk:Dawnseeker2000/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

edit-warring

As a long-term editor you should know far better than to start edit-warring, as you have at 1989 Newcastle earthquake. You should know to follow WP:BRD and discuss on the article's talk page. You shouldn't simply revert to your preferred version if another editor objects to your edits. It's up to you to establish consensus for the change and, while discussion is in progress the status quo reigns. Given how clear, and widely accepted the Bold-revert-discuss cycle is, it's rather hypocritical of you to leave edit summaries like this, telling others not to do exactly what you're doing yourself. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Using an uninviting user-generated map when a USGS version is available is a poor decision. Tango/two. Dawnseeker2000 15:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. (for AussieLegend or anyoone else driving by)

Well, like I said, I was in a hurry because I was off to work. I didn't want to leave without saying something and one way to do that was to use the edit summary. I really didn't want to get into a discussion on the talk page, because there would be some never-ending take it out/leave it in back and forth battle, and I'm just not good at that. What I am good at is improving earthquake articles, and I found a rather glaring flaw in the homebrew isoseismal map in the 1989 Newcastle earthquake article. I did wind up posting to the talk page (more than 24 hours later) with a statement on why the image is not good for WP or the article, and with the same message about not wanting to go back and forth about it. I don't have the energy to do that. Next time, just save the previous page instead of using the revert button (which can come off as being rude) especially on an established editor. Thank you (no reply necessary) Dawnseeker2000 00:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S.S (for anyone interested in mischief on WP)

Well, I just noticed something odd about our little back and forth deal on 1989 Newcastle earthquake the other day. Was ready to dust myself off and resume my other activities here, but had a look at the edit history on that article and noticed an editor that reverted my last edit there. It looks to be a WP:SPA that was created during our little edit war (a few minutes prior to their one and only edit). I doubt we'll see any more of Editor35714 (talk · contribs). Sure doesn't smell good. Dawnseeker2000 01:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of 2008 Sichuan earthquake aftershocks may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to May 30, 1998 Afghanistan earthquake may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2008 El Calvario earthquake
added a link pointing to Columbia
2013 Nariño earthquake
added a link pointing to Columbia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake Prediction

Dawnseeker2000, I saw your Talk comment at Earthquake Prediction (EP) and, in response, I had a look at some of the earthquake articles you've been editing. I haven't looked at all of them, but those that I've seen are very nice -- for example, the Armenian Earthquake article. As you probably know, the EP article needs attention, or at least several editors (including me) believe that it needs attention. At the same time, there is also some substantial resistance from other corner to making pretty much any change of the EP article. I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia, and so I'm learning to navigate some of these issues of collaboration and disagreement. Of course, I understand that it is the content (and style) that counts, not the expertise of the editors contributing the content (and style). So, on that basis, seeing the earthquake articles on which you've been working, I wonder if you might consider devoting some energy to the EP article. Let me just say that the subject is controversial, which makes it interesting for an Wikieditor, and it is important, which makes it interesting for a Wikieditor. What do you think? Sincerely, DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

1975 Haicheng earthquake

The 1975 Haicheng earthquake figures prominently in earthquake prediction. While I understand that you might not want to weigh in on Earthquake Prediction page, your attention to the 1975 Haicheng earthquake would be appreciated. What do you think? Thanks, DoctorTerrella (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

IPCC

Hi, thx for your help. I have split the paragraph in two, as I believe Grundmanns research with Max Planck is a great achievement and the comparision of the IPCC activities with the Ozone layer problem of general interest . Serten (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake properties on Wikidata

Have you thought of submitting a proposal on Wikidata to capture some of the basic properties of earthquakes? A couple of good places to get the discussion started are: wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject_Geology and wikidata:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Natural_science#Geology. I've never gone through the process of proposing new properties so I'd have to learn this by myself. --DarTar (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1965 Oaxaca earthquake may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The '''1965 Oaxaca earthquake''' occurred in [[Mexico]] on August 23 at {{tooltip|13:46|19:46 UTC]]}} with a [[Moment magnitude scale|moment magnitude]] of 7.5.<ref>E. Chael, G. Stewart, "Recent

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for creating the new template for earthquakes in the United States.

I like the idea, and I noticed you were adding it to several articles. It's a good idea in my opinion. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

What's strange is that I hadn't noticed that we were lacking the template for events in the United States until just this weekend. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000

Tsunami

I saw you started a sort of cleanup, and fully agree with the need for that. I however have restored the one and only book so far and put together the human triggered tsunamis resepctively speculations about these. I hope thats OK and in line with your intention. Cheers Serten (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for consolidating the bomb stuff. I hadn't seen that. I posted on the talk page also, and like I said there, I removed the book entry again. I just think that's out of reach for most readers, and I really don't think the authors will want their complete papers available on Google Books for free. Also, I don't think the bulk of our readers are looking for that kind of material. Thanks for checking in, Dawnseeker2000 03:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Youre welcome. I would prefer people looked up the social science issues more and less the tekkie ghibberish, so I am sort of contradicting you in a single aspect. That said, go ahead with the good work, Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius ;) Serten (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, so we have the external links that will be available for everyone, and the further reading items that will be available to the small number of readers that have access to a library that would host that kind of material. All good, thanks. Dawnseeker2000 03:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe its a privilege to live in southern Germany. I would have no problem to get the books within one hours driving - even biking :) Serten (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Replacement

I usually try to notify users when I either upload over their files (enhancements and whatnot) or create a new version, and I meant to bring up that I replaced your file with an SVG: File:1989 Newcastle earthquake ShakeMap.svg. Dustin (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, since you seem to be a significant earthquake editor, I thought I would say, I am capable of converting some ShakeMaps to SVGs, so I'd like to know what you think. There is only about one other actual earthquake editor I know of to be active apart from you though, which is why I am just bringing this up here. Dustin (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good change. Thanks for that, and I think it's fine to do more of the same. Dawnseeker2000 16:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to PK (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • by the Hollywood film [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_%28film%29 [[''Paul''<nowiki>]]]</nowiki>]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding 173.196.129.100

Thanks for reporting this IP address in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I was trying to dig into this IP's hostname in Robtex at https://www.robtex.com/, and found out that this IP was blacklisted in the Composite Blocking List blacklist. I then looked in there and found that it was infected with Conficker. I reasoned that since this machine was turned into a Conficker zombie computer, it could also be a patsy for other malware including possibly being hacked to being a zombie proxy. I have placed a check request at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies so that it can be confirmed. If it is confirmed, I believe that it will then be escalated to being blocked an all Wikimedia sites. Jesse Viviano (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I was just getting to work and pulled out my phone for a quick watchlist check, and that's the only reason I stumbled across this. Thanks for the update and for your help on this, Dawnseeker2000 18:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 15 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Mount Pinatubo crater lake depth

Good day. I would like to know why the change about the depth of mt. Pinatubo crater lake has been reverted? The average depth of 100 meters can be verified by both scientific sources and offical sources (capas, tarlac and botolan, zambales). Thank you. Volcanolover2014 (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Escalation of user warnings

Hi, I see that you served three escalating warnings in five minutes to the same user. The first warning was justified; but the next two were not, because that user had not edited since your first warning - in fact, not for over 100 minutes before that. See WP:VAND#How to warn vandalizing users "A new warning generally should not escalate from a previous warning unless a user received the previous warning and failed to heed it." The second and third warnings were for edits to Wikipedia:Namespace (which they had not edited for 5 days) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (which they had not edited for 18 days). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

That user is not here to help and needed a final warning, so I supplied it. We don't have time around here for that kind of crap. They're not an editor, they're either a vandal or incompetent. Dawnseeker2000 14:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You could have gone straight to {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but a lot of the time I like (in this fast paced environment) to leave individual notices that serve to help anyone else following along. I don't really enjoy this part of WP, but leaving an alternate record of events (other than contribs) for an admin (or anyone else) seems to be a good idea. About four years ago it was suggested that I do it this way. Thanks for stopping in. Dawnseeker2000 15:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for 1872 North Cascades earthquake

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia study- Thank you

Hello Dawnseeker2000, I hope you remember speaking to me in the summer of 2012 about your motivations for contributing to the health-related pages on Wikipedia. The great news is that the study got published this Wednesday in JMIR (Journal of Medical Internet Research). You can read it here: http://www.jmir.org/2014/12/e260 This would not have been possible without your contributions so once again, I would like to thank you for taking the time and sharing your experiences with me. I also wrote an entry about my own experience with the study, about additional observations and how I plan to further extend my research - published in the WMF blog today: https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/12/who-writes-wikipedias-health-and-medical-pages-and-why/If you have any comments or questions please get in touch.Perhaps see you at the next Wikimania conference in Mexico! Best Wishes Hydra Rain (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!!

Hello, Dawnseeker2000, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and ƬheStrikeΣagle 05:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Carolyn Brinkworth

The article Carolyn Brinkworth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable scientist; can find no non-trivial independent coverage

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

71.113.158.16 and final warning

Hello, just thought I would stop by and let you know that I saw 71.113.158.16 (talk · contribs)'s fourth edit and issued a level 3 warning after that for his third edit which was reverted by another IP, but no warning was issued for that one. Since he hasn't edited since the third warning, technically he should not receive a level 4. Additionally, the fourth edit was benign, merely removing a space. I leave it up to you, whether you want to remove the warning or not; it's not a huge issue either way. Just thought I would clarify what happened. Thanks --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 01:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I did look at each of their edits and saw that the last one was for the space removal. That's not malicious of course, but it's a taunt as well, so my message was "that's it, enough". Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 01:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Voiceinthecrowd

Instead of telling accounts or IPs that they're blocked, please raise the issue (with evidence!) at WP:SPI. It's rather unlikely that a sockpuppeteer who spends their time insulting and harassing you would stop editing because they genuinely weren't aware their behaviour is unacceptable, but the sockpuppet investigation can lead to blocks. You can use this link to add a report to the Imveracious SPI. Huon (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I just saw you're already doing so. Thanks. Huon (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Sanriku
added a link pointing to Springer
Sanriku Coast
added a link pointing to Springer
Seismicity of the Sanriku coast
added a link pointing to Springer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ref Order on 2016 Presidential Election

Thank you for your edits to the 2016 presidential election article. However please verify that references are in the right order after your edits. The oldest reference should go first. The last few edits you've made have caused many of the references to fall out of order.ObieGrad (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, fine if that's the way that article is done, and I'll exclude running AWB on that article in the future, but unless there's a way to prevent AWB from making changes to the article, anyone else that makes an AWB pass with it will probably make the same change. Thanks for letting me know, Dawnseeker2000 18:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, Portland Oregon (March 7, 2015)

You are invited!

  • Saturday, March 7: Art+Feminism – noon to 5pm
    Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the Portland Art Museum's Crumpacker Family Library (Mark Building, 2nd Floor; 1219 SW Park Avenue). Art+Feminism is a campaign to improve coverage of women and the arts on Wikipedia. No Wikipedia editing experience necessary; as needed throughout the event, tutoring will be provided for Wikipedia newcomers. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords.

Hope you can make it! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.


Thanks,

Another Believer

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. -MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


The Fourteen Infallibles

Would you please help us to copy edit this article?Salman mahdi (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Earthquakes in Germany

Did you look at the talk page before you moved this to List of earthquakes in Germany? There was repeated relevant discussion, because the scope of the article is to explain the seismicity of the country as well as to list individual earthquakes, and it is not an exhaustive list. It wasn't moved before because those involved in editing it didn't seem to feel the "List" title was appropriate. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not, and may not had I seen that, but I think the standardization of our earthquake article titles is fine. Dawnseeker2000 20:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to move it back and start another talk page section on the issue, then. I'll leave it to you to notify the relevant wikiprojects. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't sound like a good idea. You're going to argue over the words "list of"? A number of our earthquake lists include some discussion of the seismicity in general and are not always "pure" lists. It makes sense to use a standardized name. Dawnseeker2000 20:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Farhan chamber

A tag has been placed on User talk:Farhan chamber requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wgolf (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami

(diff | hist) . . 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami‎; 00:42 . . (-863)‎ . . ‎Dawnseeker2000 (talk | contribs)‎ (drop material – please use secondary sources) Have secondary sources (journal refs) system crashed and I couldn't find the way back. No desire to degrade article but think information is relevant AmyEBHC (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

A question

Hello Dawnseeker, I have a question for you (absolutely no criticism, an honest question). I looked at your edit to Sleep and noticed that you, more than once, reversed the order of two refs where they appear side-by-side. Is there a reason or a rule for which of two refs should come first? (I'm watching this page.) Regards, Hordaland (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, hello and good morning. For the most part I use AWB to do general fixes, and this includes ordering references. If it finds consecutive refs that are not in numerical order it will highlight that as a proposed change. There has to be a typo in the article for the program to (also) notify about these situations, but when it comes up I allow it to make the change. Dawnseeker2000 14:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks and good evening! (It's 19:28 here :) ) Learn something new every day. I've never used AWB and will study it; thanks for link. --Hordaland (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1979 Coyote Lake earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Juan Bautista. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for your immediate edit on "2015 Nepal earthquake" page, regarding the typo I pointed out. Thanks!!! Akshay.C.S (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Earthquakes

Sorry to bother you, but who apart from you actively edits earthquake-related articles? I was trying to come up with a new way to organize information and sections on an earthquake swarm draft I have been working on (the organization is currently really bad in my opinion), but I can't seem to find anyone (apart from you) to ask for advice, but if possible, I don't want to have to bother you every time I have an earthquake-related question. Dustin (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Mikenorton is the guru, but I don't know of anyone else that's currently active. There used to be at least one other editor around, and sometimes more. But no worries, I can give you what I think about the draft. I've looked at it a couple of times since you started it, and at them moment it says what it should; I mean, it's complete. It's chronological, and I think you could stick with that strategy, but it would be nice to somehow break it up into other readable chunks. What are the other aspects of what's going on there? Human-related activities. If there's a way to pull whatever material is present into a new section or sections on the different takes on those aspect(s) that would be key. You're bounded by what the sources are saying, and how they say it.
Is there any one person or group that has a strong opinion on the matter? Sometimes sources focus on one person's perspective. You could compare perspectives, if there are any, in their own sections. Bah, I'm not saying anything you don't already know. The articles that I've done show that it really comes down to what the sources are, how they say what they say, and how they compliment each other. If those things come together then usually the article has good structure and continuity. Sorry, rambling now. Dawnseeker2000 00:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the response! I don't know how active WP:Peer review is, but I was thinking that I might go there to see what should be trimmed and where I should expand (but in a specific suggestion by suggestion way so I can publish this draft and get it to C class). They aren't as specialized though, so I thought I'd try to get some input from a specialized editor. I'll try to work drawing some of the information out into more specialized sections (causes, other research) and try to make sure that, in the chronological part, that information is organized by what the relevant time period is rather than only by the order in which information is published (sorry if that statement is hard to understand because of bad wording). Again, thanks for the suggestions. Dustin (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that before I can move this draft to mainspace, I am currently using a special infobox which I created for swarms since {{Infobox earthquake}} did not seem sufficient. I don't think I am allowed to transclude pages from userspace in mainspace, but I don't think this would be a great idea to have as a separate template from {{Infobox earthquake}} in template namespace considering that it would only really be of use on very few pages. Do you have any ideas there? Thanks. Dustin (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well first, I should say that I don't really review a lot of good articles. I like to create, but am not as good at reviewing other people's work. So peer review might be OK, but just make sure you've exhausted all possible sources to get a feel for every possible aspect to it. This is kind of different from what I normally do, since it's usually the same types of subheadings that come up for the different earthquake articles. Also, there is probably some existing article that covers at least some of what you're writing about right? There are some sources in your article that mention fracking but I didn't see any of the terms linked. We do have a number of articles on hydraulic fracturing. Are those going to be of use in the article. That would open up a whole new set of possible sections.
Shouldn't we consider modifying the existing infobox earthquake to include fields that are specific to swarms? There really could be some major improvement to the couple of swarm articles that we have, and could open up possibilities for more to be created. I am working on List of earthquakes in California and have found that the Imperial Valley has had intermittent swarms. Don't know if they're article worthy, but just saying that there's lots of events that could be considered if it were easier or more appealing. I know nothing of modifying infoboxes so we'd have to ping someone in that area for some help. I actually don't even know who made our infobox. Dawnseeker2000 01:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you care if I created Category:Intraplate earthquakes? Thanks. Dustin (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

We might not ever have a need for that kind of categorization. The reason I say that is that I think we already have problems with the wrong categories being applied (Category:Megathrust earthquakes). That one alone will take some time to clean up. A similar issue would exist with interplate vs intraplate. What if it's a "plate marginal" event? Plate boundaries are much broader than they were once considered. In my way of thinking, I imagine the maintenance aspect of that kind of thing. Don't let me stop you though, those are just my thoughts. There was a proposal for, and you may have seen this, a structured category system for eq magnitude. What went through my mind at the time was an amplification of the back and forth editing that we have now (especially after the Nepal EQ) with editors blindly modifying the figures with no source and no edit summary. Total chaos. But again, that's my (pessimistic) view what might happen and the extra cleanup work that might result from it. I could very well be wrong. Dawnseeker2000 22:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Bring it up at the talk page on WP Earthquakes for some other opinions :) Dawnseeker2000 23:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Re Many thanks

Hello DAWNSEEKER2000. Not a problem in doing the work for this great site. I enjoy doing the articles. I saw that previously there was a big gap in the years from 2005 backwards so my aim is to get caught up. I will work hard over the coming weeks to get as much progress done as possible. I have been following earthquakes for a good number of years now and think they are a fascinating natural phenomenon. In Scotland we dont get very many and I certainly dont recall ever feeling anything. Obviously in light of the recent tragic events in Nepal they can create great destruction and death. Unfortunately that is nature and it was here long before us. Thanks for getting in touch and take care. Matt EK 87 21:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"all of our earthquake articles follow this style"

Why is that? Was there a Wikipedia community discussion resulting in a consensus that the site-wide guideline doesn't apply to earthquake articles? Also, why did you undo the rest of my copyediting as well? —David Levy 01:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to restore the remainder of your edit. Dawnseeker2000 01:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Please answer my first two questions. —David Levy 01:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, the event is being called the 2015 Nepal earthquake, so we bold it, just like the ~800 other earthquake articles that we have. Dawnseeker2000 01:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Did you read the guideline and the related essay? "2015 Nepal earthquake" is a sensible description, just as Amish school shooting and April 2014 Abuja bombing are sensible descriptions of the respective articles' subjects. A description isn't the same as a formal or widely accepted designation.
Google News is showing 90 times more hits for "earthquake in Nepal" than for "2015 Nepal earthquake". Does that mean that we should add "earthquake in Nepal" (and every other descriptive phrase we find among reliable sources) to the lead?
Your citation of the other ~800 earthquake articles is an "other stuff exists" argument. (Maybe someone used the same justification when we had 50, 100 or 200 earthquake articles.)
Perhaps many of those articles' leads are formatted incorrectly. Or do you assert that literally every earthquake with an article in the English Wikipedia has one or more widely accepted names (as opposed to descriptions)? I don't doubt that some do, but all of them?
Until recently, several thousand articles about bird species contained title-case formatting of their subjects' common names throughout (page title, bolded mention in lead, and all other instances). For example, instead of "blue jay", was had "Blue Jay". Obviously, this didn't constitute a binding precedent (because that isn't how Wikipedia works). Certainly, the changeover required a great deal of time and effort. Modifying the leads of several hundred earthquake articles would be a far less daunting task. —David Levy 02:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I think we have a handful of articles that aren't bolded because they're not major events and aren't covered by the media or by scientists (and no title given). For the most part, our articles are about large to great earthquakes that have been reported by the media and seismologists. That makes it easy for us to follow the name that's given. The same is going to be the case here, though we'll need to wait months to years for the scientists to publish their work. The boldtitle statement says to bold the accepted name and that's what we're doing. Dawnseeker2000 02:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Unquestionably, numerous reliable sources have used the phrase "2015 Nepal earthquake". But as noted above, the same is true of other descriptive phrases. How has it been determined that this one is the accepted name? Realistically, how can such a thing even exist so soon? —David Levy 02:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
It's reasonable to use this name for now. We need to wait for the journal articles, at which time the article could go through a rewrite. It's expected that the seismologists will either use this name or one that reflects the nearest geological feature. Dawnseeker2000 02:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
If "2015 Nepal earthquake" is not yet the accepted name (and might not become the accepted name in the future), why is it appropriate to present it as such? Why not simply wait for the seismologists to settle on an actual name and then add it to the lead? In the meantime, what's the benefit of including a placeholder (which misleads readers and does nothing to enhance their understanding of the article's subject)?
How is that consistent with the aforementioned guideline? (To be clear, I regard "because the policy/guideline says so" as one of the weakest arguments that a Wikipedia editor can make. I'm citing the guideline not to claim that we must follow it for the sake of following it, but to convey the underlying reasons for its existence.) —David Levy 03:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know where you're going with this. It's fine. Have a great night. Dawnseeker2000 03:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You don't understand my concerns, so you're curtly dismissing them? —David Levy 03:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to relax right now, and this isn't helping. Yes, I'm dismissing your concern. Goodnight, Dawnseeker2000 03:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Understood. Good night. —David Levy 03:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

1992 Landers Quake edits

Hi

I just edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Landers_earthquake and the edit has been moved, I assume for asthertic, layout consistency reasons.

When using the Wikipedia app most pages a have a beautiful representative image as a banner.(Note web users do not see this banner.)

For example the Big Bear Quake has the shakemap as the banner image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Big_Bear_earthquake

The Landers Quake also has a banner but instead of a topic-relevant shakemap it has a map of California that doesnt even show the epicenter location. (Once again, this is not about the web page layout)

I wanted to make the banner image be the relevant image, not something that appears to be unrelated.

Please let me know if this issue should be brought up as a wikipedia app "bug" that the only way to create the banner is to violate some other best practice.

Thanks

Ollie — Preceding unsigned comment added by OllieG-wiki (talk • contribs) 04:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I see You have corrected several spelling-misstakes in the Sweden article - I'm very greatful for Your help. Thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Bruce Bolt

Thank you for merging the two articles on Bruce A. Bolt. Unfortunately, in doing so, you dropped the middle initial from his name. Bolt consistently used his middle initial "A." in his publications, it is in the name of the medal named in his honor, etc. Other sources refer to his full middle name.

A person's name is important. When merging two articles, the survivor should be the one with the more appropriate name (title) under Wikipedia's name guidelines, not which one was first. Because you did that, I now have to persuade an administrator to move the article back just to restore his initial.

How did you go about merging the content? Did you retain all the valid content and sources from both articles? Or, did you just make the Bruce A. Bolt article a redirect to Bruce Bolt.—Finell 05:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You can look at the history of both articles to look at what they were beforehand. I think the merge went OK. Both articles were not too large at the time, and I think I retained the best of both. I don't think this should be an issue. Just use the process at WP:RM and we should be good. Dawnseeker2000 05:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

100000 Edits
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 313 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

. Buster Seven Talk 15:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

I'll spare you the standard template, but it sure looks from here like you're engaged in an edit war. Dwpaul Talk 02:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the reminder. Dawnseeker2000 03:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1979 Coyote Lake earthquake

The article 1979 Coyote Lake earthquake you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:1979 Coyote Lake earthquake for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of West Virginian -- West Virginian (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Dawnseeker2000, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and have a great day, Dawnseeker2000 20:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Bantul earthquake

I took quite a strong interest in this in my early days as wp editor as I did my post grad fieldwork ( a few years before) at a place that more or less got destroyed by it - the 'Yogyakarta' thing is a constant problem on wp en- the range of ways that international or non local reporting and web sites that interplay Indonesia/Java/Yogyakarta to the point of severe annoyance is under-statement - then when Bantul enters, most geographically challenged need larger reference points - Indonesia, then Java, then central java etc. Keep up with the earthquake editing - it looks great - User:JarrahTree 01:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope to finish the article this year. I bought a book from Amazon that has a number of papers included, so I have plenty of sources for it, but just ran out of energy with all the writing. It's been bugging me that it's incomplete, and ideally I'd like to have it finished sometime this summer, with recognized content in mind. Dawnseeker2000 01:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Warnings of 2602:30A:C07E:24B0:1C2A:D6D3:E15:8C8E

That IP did not make any edits between your first and second warnings, so why did you post two warnings? I'm not trying to be bothersome or anything, but I just thought I should ask. Thank you. Dustin (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

They made five vandalistic edits. I warned them twice. That's a fairly good deal for them, I think. Most admins will not block without numerous warnings so I usually leave plenty for them. I do it this way because an administrator advised me to. Dawnseeker2000 16:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for your response. Dustin (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

1979 Bali earthquake

Hello, I was just wondering why there's a difference between the NGDC and ShakeMap magnitude measurements for the earthquake. The former gives an Ms of 6.5 but the latter gives a M (maybe Mw?) of 6.3. --Inoffensive dinosaw (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There are always going to be a large variety of values for magnitude, coordinates, and intensity (especially for well-studied events). Just imagine all the scientists around the world that are using different equipment and different techniques. Each person's work is going to result in slightly different figures. Also, it would be preferable to use moment magnitude where possible across our articles for consistency. Dawnseeker2000 21:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

North Solomon Islands

The categories refer to (1) the 1885 creation of a German protectorate (which you kept); (2) the 1893 creation of a British protectorate on the other part of the islands; and (3/4) the 1900 treaty changing the area from the German New Guinea to the British Solomon Islands protectorates. If you wanted to keep something, the 1568 "discovery" by the Spanish makes more sense that the German creation of a protectorate while ignoring the British creation and the treaty itself. We can move this to the article talk page if you prefer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cameron Diaz may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{cite web|title=Cameron Diaz Biography|work=''[[About.com]]''|last=Mimon|first=Diana|publisher=[[The New York Times Company] |url=http://gossip.about.com/od/celebrityprofiles/p/Cameron_Diaz.htm|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Massive

I'm not planning on undoing your change or anything, but why exactly is the word "massive" not encyclopedic? Dustin (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Dustin, I don't feel like it's necessary to respond to this question. Dawnseeker2000 17:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand words like "big", but at least in this context, your words hold no value if you do not explain them! I myself would not use the word "massive" because it can be associated with mass, but that is not a reason for it to be called unencyclopedic. Dustin (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I read a lot of literature about earthquakes and scientists do not use those kinds of terms when describing them. Neither should we. Using a word like "massive" seems a bit juvenile and uninformed. If we're to use a set of words to describe shocks there are a set of words that are used for the different ranges:

  • 5.0–5.9 Moderate
  • 6.0–6.9 Large
  • 7.0–7.9 Very Large
  • ≥8.0 Great

Dawnseeker2000 17:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Coming late to this debate, the term "giant earthquake" does get used for Mw9+. See this paper page 353. Other scientists use it to mean close to M9, including earthquakes like the 2010 Maule event in Chile (M8.8). However, a Google Scholar search shows quite a lot of usage for the M9+ meaning, so I think that you can add that to the upper part of the range. Mikenorton (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Roger that. I've seen it used as well, recently even, probably on the 2004 Sumatra–Andaman earthquake. Thanks for pointing that out. This came up because I just want to avoid us using terms you might hear/read in the media. In general, I really want to avoid overstating the effects of earthquakes. On a side note, I saw Chris Goldfinger's talk here in Portland in February, but missed Thorne Lay's presentation while he was in town a couple of weeks ago. Dagnabit, saw the video on YouTube though. Dawnseeker2000 20:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Here's another take on the naming, going from Moderate as you have it above, then Strong for 6-6.9 and Major for 7-7.9, I've certainly heard that being used, but it's tough to find anything definitive. However, they're all good descriptive terms that we can use. Mikenorton (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Definitely on board with those standard descriptions (that have the right tone). Thanks for the link, Dawnseeker2000 05:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for a 3rd opinion

Hi! Since you are (or have been) one of the main contributors/maintainers of the Abba article, I'd like to request your opinion on a dispute about the proper handling of sales figures in the article's lead.

The dispute is at Talk:ABBA#Sales and your input would be very much appreciated. --Kmhkmh (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalizing Wikipedia:User pages

I didn't (or, at the very least, not intentionally). Also, as you can see, I reverted them immediately. You should have seen that, coming here twenty minutes after I reverted them. My short and incomplete explanation was that it was an accident after a silly test which I didn't intend to publish, but if you'd like to know more, I can explain further. (By the way, I requested for my user page to be deleted after I had done the very same thing to it, because I would have preferred if it didn't show up in the edit history). Regardless, I apologize for the inconvenience. Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop talking like that around here. Dawnseeker2000 00:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean? Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Earthquakes in the Levant

Hi, Dawnseeker2000. Two quick questions: Would you put the 847 Damascus earthquake in the Classic era or the Middle ages; and what is the cut-off date between the two? Reasons for asking: I wrote the article a while back as the 847 Antioch earthquake, when {{Earthquakes in Turkey}} had lots of redlinks (all blue now :) , and mikenorton moved it to its current name per the talk. I recently noticed that it now has a {{Earthquakes in the Levant}} template, in which the 847 event isn't included. So... where should it go? A number of articles tend to point towards the 5th-6th centuries as the start of the post-classical age, so does the 749 Galilee earthquake also belong in the Middle ages? :>MinorProphet (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi MinorProphet, that is a good question. Those are really old events. Any uncertainty that I've had usually revolves around the geographical scope of the Levant, and whether to include an earthquake based on its location. I'm not all that up to speed on those old periods, but Greyshark09 set them up on the template. Maybe they'd be a good place to ask? Good luck, Dawnseeker2000 14:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: User 103.248.14.182

Hello, indeed, long time no talk! I trust you're well, too. Thanks for letting me know about the pattern of block evasion; I've blocked the latest IP for a year. Graham87 03:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 18:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gus Gus - Purple.ogg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gus Gus - Purple.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

To Dawnseeker2000

Please explain the action of you revert Taiwan part
If you keeping act rude without reason I see you in the Village pump --Composcompos12 (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Lists of earthquakes

Hi. Thanks for your feedback on the ongoing work I am doing with the earthquake lists. I will admit that as the number of events has increased over the years the time to complete each article is getting longer also. I tend to just work with the information I find in relation to all events above the magnitude 6.0+ barrier. I would agree that a lot of them (particularly events in the mid ocean ridges) are not noteworthy and I don't imagine there would have been much media interest when they occured.

Going forward to help increase my productivity Ill stick to the ones affecting the more populated areas. I understand that in particularly active years for earthquakes the lists probably look quite cluttered. With that in mind I appreciate that for the reader of the articles interest would wane somewhat as they work their way down the page.

I enjoy helping to collate this information and will continue in the coming weeks to get good progress made towards eventual completion.

All the best. Matt.

Reference errors on 15 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caledonian Canal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scottish. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Mississipi

I know how to spell Mississipi, but it is somewhat difficult how and where I have to stop. Thank you very much. --Fev 22:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

All good :) I probably would have misspelled it. Dawnseeker2000 01:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

While I take full responsibility, I should probably let you know that the issue was talked about ages ago and I was going to try and reword it but I've been busy with school work. Feel free to remove it or reword it. Jackninja5 (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of earthquakes in Indonesia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ceram. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

guide me for making a new page on wikipedia i am new here

dear pl help and guide.................. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HannuMannu (talk • contribs) 10:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami

Re: reverting my edit on Dec. 30th:

While I agree that substituting another synonym for the word "earthquake" would be useful here, I still strongly believe that introduction needs to be changed; it sounds very strange to introduce a topic with nothing other than the time at which it occurred and not a more general introductory statement - especially one that includes the magnitude, considering it was the third most powerful earthquake ever recorded.

Bomb319 (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. The introduction does not make the reader aware of the significance of the event right away. I have a method that I use on other earthquake articles, but haven't applied it to this one. Dawnseeker2000 02:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of earthquakes in Iceland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Selfoss. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Elisa Lam reverts

I'd like to thank you for not just this edit but some of the other reverts you have made on that page as well, which I put a lot of effort into getting as right as I could and thus needs careful watching.

Actually, I think I know what the IP is doing: confusing, or perhaps trying to suggest, that the article link to the Japanese original of that film (as it does in the body) instead of the American remake. Or that we clarify that in the text. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

OK Gotcha, I didn't think it was helpful to have the ref say one thing and the article another, but also left the door open by inviting the IP to make their case. Have a great weekend, Dawnseeker2000 19:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The ref used actually explicitly mentions the 2005 film, which is, I think, because more people are familiar with it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, because it's mentioned in the ref is why I restored it. :) Dawnseeker2000 21:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I thought you were referring to the way it was before the IP edited. Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Comma after "therefore"

Hi:

Can you tell me why Wikipedia insists that every instance of the word "therefore" be followed by a comma? I'm looking at the edits you made to the Parabola article last night. In British English, this comma is not considered necessary nor even generally desirable, unless the punctuation of the surrounding sentence demands it.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't actually know if the reasons for what are considered "typos" are published. In the cases that I've let AWB make the change, it seemed appropriate, but hadn't considered different styles of English. If my change needs to be reverted for style or other reasons, please do. Dawnseeker2000 19:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not worth reverting. but I do feel that AWB and other bots should be told not to make changes without the approval of a human, and the humans should be aware of the variations that exist in English. It's somewhat insulting for an editor to write something perfectly correctly. and then to be "corrected" by some mindless bot. Many articles say "use British English", but many people do not know what British English is. Using spellings such as "colour" and "centre" does not make English British. Compared with American usage, British punctuation is often different. For example, semicolons are hardly ever used. Oh well.... Enough said. DOwenWilliams (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No, no. I'm glad you made the distinction. I would have never known otherwise :) I'll take your words into consideration when doing AWB runs. Dawnseeker2000 00:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of earthquakes in Papua New Guinea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Ireland. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Thank you

Thank you. I think. Was that for what I said at EP? Or .. maybe for what I didn't say?! ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That was for being the steady voice of reason in that debate (and other areas of WP) and for being funny. Dawnseeker2000 01:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Not that I am often accused of being a steady voice of reason (that's so tedious!), but I figure a little amusement lightens the chores. Thanks again. And thanks for being steadily on top of lot of drive trashing. It's always reassuring to see you in the history. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Re Thanks

Hello, Dawnseeker2000. Thank you for acknowledging my contributions to Wikipedia. I have enjoyed my input for the last two years and will continue to work hard to create and improve the earthquake articles. I have not progressed beyond 1956 for now because I have went back to the beginning and reviewed my work to date. The USGS has been kind enough to change the links and magnitudes of virtually all of the events on the lists. Updating this has been the focus of the last few weeks for me. Im also weeding out the events which are not significant enough to have been placed on the lists. Eventually once caught up I will start using the Mercalli scale for events as you have been encouraging for the 2016 list. I like that idea as I feel that this highlights the importance of sticking to the noteworthy events and not putting on ones which were remote. Matt EK 87 (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1930 Salmas earthquake

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1930 Salmas earthquake you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for being so amiable and understanding at the 1930 Salmas earthquake GA review, as well as other reviews you have been involved in. I am new to reviewing Geography articles, it was a good experience learning from you. Your font color is also very beautiful and serene. This award is really well-deserved ! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 08:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1930 Salmas earthquake

The article 1930 Salmas earthquake you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1930 Salmas earthquake for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile

A comma after meanwhile in not required by MOS, not is it necessarily standard Canadian English. In US usage it is optional, and in the sentence in question it is unnecessary to meaning. If it is added, it breaks the flow of the sentence. I do not plan to get into an edit war over this but would appreciate it if you would revert your addition. Dankarl (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Dankarl, I was recently made aware of the various usage of commas with the different varieties of English, so my follow up edit only removed the unnecessary space at the top of the page and the capital "A" in "See also". In other words, I didn't revert you. I hadn't heard of "comma splash" before, but I left the comma as it was. Dawnseeker2000 03:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, jumped the gun there. Comma splash was what my 10th-grade English teacher called it; I do not know if it is widely used.

Best, Dankarl (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Uiju county

On the Uiju County page you removed the bit on the earthquake that happened there, saying it's non-notable. However, if that was the largest quake on the Korean peninsula since such records have been kept, I'd think that would definitely be notable... 2Q (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the period that Korean records have been kept is very short. That's why the event is not notable. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 16:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the logic there, but alright. I am, after all, someone who thought an earthquake was a train going by, and rolled over and went back to sleep... :) Out of curiosity, how long a time would records need to be kept to make something like this notable? I mean, I'm sure Libya doesn't keep snowfall records, would then a flurry in Tripoli not be notable? Genuinely just curious - I don't really care enough either way to make an argument about it! 2Q (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The notability claim on this event is "It is the largest earthquake by magnitude recorded in the Korean Peninsula since South Korea began official earthquake observation in 1978". Thirty-eight years ago is a speck in time. Organizations in other countries were actively monitoring shocks in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and details of larger events are available that go much farther back than that. Dawnseeker2000 15:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

2005 Hindu Kush earthquake

I am sorry but I was unaware that I violated anything on the style guideline? I was solely just adding information and more links to the topic in order to complete an assignment for my Honors Natural Disturbances and Society class. Cchap23 (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)cchap23

Hi @Dawnseeker2000: I want to acknowledge that I am aware of many of my students editing earthquake articles and there being some WP policy issues. To minimize frustration, I am addressing these issues in my class. I appreciate you highlighting where editing improvements are needed and directing the students to appropriate resources. I would be happy to discuss how we can work as a team to improve earthquake stub articles and provide students with constructive, but kind feedback. @Cchap23: the assignment is not to just put content on an article, but to also consider what is needed. If there is a component that does not fit, then we should discuss other options directly. The ideas is to improve the overall information. All together, we must work toward contributing to the knowledge, while keeping true to the WP publishing procedures. Let's chat about components that were not applicable to this particular article. BCarmichael (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Seismic source

Hello Dawnseeker2000,

Thank you for your comments, I have polished the references provided by adding reference to the page in the Encyclopedic Dictionary where the concept or matter is explained. Also have relocated a few ones as to be more specific on which specific s of the article link to each portion of the reference. Hope this solves and answers your question. Regards Uruk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uruk (talk • contribs) 06:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in, Dawnseeker2000 18:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

RE:1929 Grand Banks earthquake

Thank you for pointing that out to me. Cheers Kyle1278 (talk) (Ctb) (log) 15:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Arabian_Plate

Thank you for your advice: much appreciated by this apprentice. ABZebra (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2010 Beni-Ilmane earthquakes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary

I noticed you made this edit which made two changes to he Optical Landing article and identified them as "typos" in the edit summary. However, neither of these changes were typo corrections. Please try to avoid misleading edit summaries. - Nick Thorne talk 01:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem, but this is how we got here. What I do sometimes is set up an AWB run to replace redirects with their targets, but also let it make general fixes while doing that. Sometimes there aren't a lot of typos to fix, so while working on a page, I also take the time to do fix up the "See also" sections by replacing redirects with their targets and alphabetizing. If there's not a typo when I do that, then I just leave the default edit summary. On some (saved) runs I've got an edit summary that states what I'm doing (alpha & replace redirects) but I just didn't take the time to set that up this time. Sorry. Looks like there were less than 20 edits that had the default summary.
Again, really surprised that this was taken as a big deal. I also support the use of edit summaries, and I (often) remind people to use them, but my efforts around here never involve misleading other editors. Dawnseeker2000 03:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a big deal, but I have had a bit of trouble with vandals using misleading edit summaries. In this case I was pretty sure what had happened was more or less what you said because the edit summary included the fact that AWB was used to make the edit. Nevertheless, I feel it is important to maintain appropriate edit summaries and if you don't have time to set them up for a particular run, then maybe you don't have time to do the run and it would be better to wait until you do. I don't want to make a Federal case about this, so I'm not going to comment further unless you ask me to. Happy editing. - Nick Thorne talk 06:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nick Thorne. I'm Dawnseeker2000, and I am an active contributor here. Yes, I have seen vandals do the same, but you knew that that wasn't the case here. The time it takes to set up an edit summary in AWB is the same as in a browser, a few seconds, and it is worth leaving accurate edit summaries. I didnt do it for a tiny fraction of the total AWB edits that I make (that's about all I'm doing these days) and you caught me. And I agree, we shouldn't make a federal case about this either, but it's too late :)

See you around, Dawnseeker2000 06:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page

Thanks. 70.124.133.228 (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

List of Deadliest Natural Disasters

Hello! I edited a page recently and I got a message from you that my edits were revoked because they were unconstructive. I was really confused because I put a new disaster in that was deadlier than some on the list. I did research and the Tohuku Tsunami of 3/11/11 was more deadlier than 5 of the disasters. Can you please explain this to me?? Thanks!

-DragonGirl760

A barnstar for you!!

The Userpage Shield
Thanks for protecting everyone's talk pages against the sockpuppet Nolantron10. Peter Sam Fan 12:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

2012 Northern Italy earthquakes

My apologies for jumping into the middle of your edit stream; I didn't notice the "in use" template until after I'd saved my edit. ► Bgpaulus (WORDS & DEEDS) ◄ 23:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

All good, thank you! Dawnseeker2000 23:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Epsom

I do not suppose you know when or why the map on the Epsom article was deleted? Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No, just what I found when double-checking that it was actually deleted (File:Epsom map.jpg). From July 6, 2014, it says "F7: Violates non-free content criterion #1". Dawnseeker2000 23:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Ouch, that far back huh! Oh well, thanks for the info. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For sticking up for me and undoing the vandalism on my talk page. You're awesome! Kailey 2001 (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry about the hard time with the vandal. If you hang in there, that will eventually go away, and you can experience some of the nicer aspects of WP :) Dawnseeker2000 01:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I need help

dear Dawnseeker2000 I used about 1:20 seconds of your song on youtube in this episode : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn5sVKCi2pU to make a trailer for the previous episode I want to know if i can have your anti copyright permission

I have not used the entire song ! but is just 1 minute this minute ... youtube for copyright warned me and I want to remove that warning . I still do not earn money from youtube .. if i can do something to remove that warning .. i dont know.... I can write what do you want in description ...Notify me please .. mail: alexleul1998@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.26.10.211 (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Revamping Talk Pages on Wikipedia

Hi Dawnseeker2000,

I'm a student at American University currently enrolled in a class about Wikipedia. I'm working with another student on a project to get input from Wikipedia users about talk pages and their usefulness as they currently stand. We believe they are difficult to use, track of and are not easy to follow. If you could make any improvements to Wikipedia talk pages overall, 1) Would you? 2) Why or why not? and 3) What would those improvements be?

Thanks, Spienciak (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I think they're functional, but I don't really put much thought into these kinds of things. The interface is not really my focus, but I'm sure there will be some incremental changes to it as time progresses. I'm probably not the right person to ask, but I don't doubt that you'll get plenty of proper responses. Dawnseeker2000 03:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

1960 Valdivia earthquake

Wait it is not standard to include the type of Earthquake in lead? That does not make any sense megathrusts are the only type of quakes which can hit 9.0 Mw I think that is important, also you left the word "was most powerful" it still "is" the most powerful. Valoem talk contrib 03:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Woops, I was working from my phone and didn't see that you'd changed that bit. I totally left the type in. Just moved it down to the second paragraph in the lead. Dawnseeker2000 03:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I reworded again without repeating earthquake, do we have an FA quake article to reference, I think the type of earthquake should be important enough to be mentioned in the lead. Valoem talk contrib 03:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm using this article 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami as a reference point since we don't have an FA? Valoem talk contrib 03:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
It necessary to include it, but saying "and earthquake was an earthquake" just does not read well and looks like an amateur wrote it. You'd never see that kind of writing in a book or journal article. Please feel free to give it another go. Hold on, let me look at the Japan article. Sorry, two edit conflicts. Dawnseeker2000 03:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, please don't use that one as a template. That lead needs a rewrite. Dawnseeker2000 03:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
It is actually proper English to mention earthquake twice since 1960 Valdivia earthquake is a WP:PROPERNAME for example if a person's last name is Musician and he is a musician we could say John Musician is a musician. Valoem talk contrib 03:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Valoem, it's nice to chat with you. I know I've seen your username around for quite a while. I've had a long Monday and I need to go start winding down. I apologize for undoing your last edit, but I feel strongly about that type of wording. Just a little while ago, I made and edit that might shed some more light on the subject. See the edit and edit summary on this change. Dawnseeker2000 04:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

2014 Peru Earthquake

Thank you for your help, I have cited my reference for the information added and rephrased the information in my own words. However, I am working as part of a class Wikipedia assignment and ask that you please refrain from removing the content I added. Thank you in advance. Jdauph2 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

We can't accept copyrighted material. We also can't accept close paraphrasing. Thanks for your understanding. Dawnseeker2000 18:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to the Wikipedia page titled 'Swimmming Pool' almost 3 years ago

Hey, Dawnseeker I think you have mistakenly sent me the message about the edits made to the Swimming Pool article. My Internet connection is configured to have a Dynamic IP address, so every time I connect to the internet I'm assigned to a new IP address, due to which I have received your message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.57.254.190 (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Replay:April 2016

Thank you for using the talk page about the discussion of using Minor edits, about the edits I marked as minor is this edit that involves only a removal of empty field I added earlier, whereas edits that involved adding new content that required resource were not marked as minor edit edit, the only thing that was missing as it seems is adding a more precise summery instead of just point where is the section I edited, thank your for pointing that out for me. 967Bytes (Contact) 18:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do want to avoid a redirect? As I thought I had previously explained, having all these other articles link to California earthquake forecast, and having that redirect to UCERF3, means that a single edit would suffice to update all these other articles when UCERF4 comes out. Less work, and less chance that some obscure link gets overlooked. And there are cases where a link to "UCERF3" should not be changed when UCERF4 comes out. Also, "UCERF" is not something most readers will understand, while "California earthquake forecast" is something they will. Are you really sure these changes are good? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I do read your talk posts (I even link to them) but it may have been a while back, and I became distracted with a need for something to do and applied my one size fits all approach. And yes, I'd thought about the familiarity factor, but dismissed that due to the speed with which we can soon know what that link is–just a click a away kind of thing. Well, I think I also hosed the talk page move: Talk:UCERF2 → Talk:UCERF3. Sigh, let me go through the redirects tonight; there's not many of them. Dawnseeker2000 00:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, arrange for a fresh sticky-bun with my coffee in the morning and I'll let you off easy. :-)
BTW, have you noticed that the UCERF3 sources include a list of Calif. earthquakes? I've wondered if that would be of interest to you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Decentralized autonomous organization

An article that you have been involved in editing—Decentralized autonomous organization—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

My adjustment of article "100,000-year problem"

Dear Sir or Madam: 

 You mention that I did not supply a comment for my edit, but I did supply a comment.

I can see it when I click on the "View History" tab for that article. 

    Respectfully,
    Richard Ware  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.120.116 (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Richard, I'm not sure how you made your comment look like a subheading, but thanks for pointing that out. Dawnseeker2000 22:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Magnitude template

It's coming together. It's still pretty messy, and in flux, but check User:J. Johnson/M/doc Template:M for a sense of where I'm going. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

And I have been just charging along! Even works now. Bunch more work to do, including a close re-read of the sources. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Right on, I appreciated the work there. I occasionally re-read my work and find that I've used different styles here and there, so this should help. Dawnseeker2000 21:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I hope so! Try it out in a bunch of places, let me know if you have any suggestions. I'll run it by the earthquake group soon, but only if you think it's good enough. :-)
I have to rework the table a bit. And go through all my sources to document everything. Not that anyone working on earthquakes would quibble about such stuff, but in a month I'll probably have forgotten where it all came from. And while I'm hot I want to augment seismic scales to explain some of those scales. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you are just charging along! (All power to AWB?) It did occur to me that trying to add an article to a category that doesn't yet exist might be "interesting", but, passing up that experience, I finished creating them. (I may add some text explaining them.) I don't think you hit any of those (mainly "??" and "R"?); let me know if you see any anomalies. I still have to sort out the table, but the template itself should be fairly stable in respect of the options listed. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, your work is looking pretty monumental. I'd say I've been easing into it; that first run with the lists seemed to be a quick way to get my feet wet. What I'm really liking are the categories. We'll have to see whether or not this gets adopted to any great magnitude, but if it does, at least that tool will be there that will help those that can clarify any erroneous usage. That would totally rely on newbies placing the right initial template though. They may be hesitant to do that, and instead, I think they may be more likely to place the template that they think is correct. Regardless of all that, this is a massive step forward. Dawnseeker2000 01:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the closer I get to it the more monumental it looks. (I've gotten nearly enough material to re-write seismic scales.) And still pretty messy. I am hoping to shape up the table and documentation so that simple cases are handled plainly and simply, with the categories indicating the appropriate degree of precision, and the more technical cases are a pretty straight forward lookup. The latter, however, is still a challenge. So back to work. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Earthquake article selection

Hi @Dawnseeker2000: Would you be willing to work with me to identify earthquake articles for my class to edit? Many of my students are interested in earthquakes and I want to help ensure they are contributing quality content from reliable sources without undoing your hard work. My goal is for my class to develop both an understanding of disturbance ecology, along with the process of publication and information literacy via Wikipedia. I feel you have a unique perspective to share, both as someone familiar with the topic and as an editor. Thank you, BCarmichael (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1980 Eureka earthquake

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1980 Eureka earthquake you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1980 Eureka earthquake

The article 1980 Eureka earthquake you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:1980 Eureka earthquake for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1980 Eureka earthquake

The article 1980 Eureka earthquake you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1980 Eureka earthquake for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gloria Estefan & Miami Sound Machine - Conga.ogg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gloria Estefan & Miami Sound Machine - Conga.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Starship - We Built This City.ogg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Starship - We Built This City.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2004 Les Saintes earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scarp. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Rfc?

Perhaps you might add your view to the Rfc at Talk:Earthquake_prediction#RfC re neutrality/POV issues? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

JJ, I wish I had a better answer than this, but my activities on WP are not what they used to be and things IRL are rather unsettled here. Dawnseeker2000 17:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Computer Security user status

Hello Dawnseeker2000,

I would just like to inquire on your status on WikiProject Computer Security as the list of WikiProject Computer Security/Members is going to be improved to list active and inactive users.

This is update is being done according to a request for comments on the WikiProject Computer Security talk page. Be sure to state your status at the User status section in the WikiProject Computer Security talk page before the end of four weeks as this will state your status as inactive in the project if not done before then.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi Dawnseeker2000. I notice you have been doing a lot of good work using Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser to tidy articles. I also notice you mostly don't mark these edits as minor edits. If minor edits are marked as minor edits it is a great help to those Users who check for vandalism and other unnecessary alterations, especially when there is a large number of such edits. I recommend that when you make a minor edit you tick the box This is a minor edit before saving. Many thanks. Dolphin (t) 04:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing, whether it's a river in Malawi, a Nigerian footballer, or a South African civil rights activist, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. For those of you who signed up to the North African contest, that will hopefully be held in the new year. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted some of your edits in which you have systematically changed links, apparently for no other reason than the link pointed to a redirect, sometimes to the detriment of the article text. I see your history shows over a thousand edits with similar descriptions. AWB users are required to abide by wikipedia guidelines; that includes WP:NOTBROKEN. Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's preferable to have the current article's title as what is shown to the reader and that's why I've been taking on that task. Dawnseeker2000 13:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Have a look at what the guideline says: "Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental." I suggest you review WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:AWB#Rules of use before continuing with any further AWB edits. Burninthruthesky (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not piping links. The hundreds of edits that I've made are improvements, ans for the few instances when there's a special reason that another link is preferred, just restore it.
It isn't just about adding pipes to links. In some cases you are making detrimental changes to visible text. In others you are making edits that would be truly inconsequential, were it not for unjustified changes to to the text. I see you have already been warned above about making minor edits.
No matter how justified you may think these edits are, the onus is on you to get consensus for them, otherwise you risk losing your AWB privilege. Burninthruthesky (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I mean no disrespect, but if you'd just relax, you would see that you misread the post about someone asking me to use the minor edits check box. I think that that system is misused and abused so I did not respond or comply with that request. As far as the unjustified claim; that's your opinion. I've made a ton of improvements to our articles, and if you come across another situation that I've changed that isn't preferred, just correct it.
Also, that I'm disagreeing with you on certain aspects of this doesn't mean I'm ignoring what you're saying altogether. I have sometimes pressed the save button with a question mark about whether that it might be challenged as inconsequential, so thanks for mentioning that. The work that I'm doing (hundreds of edits for sure, and probably over a thousand) is helping the reader, and a few instances where I've made a change to a link that was set a certain way doesn't constitute a reason to start talking about taking privileges away. We're on the same team with the same goals in mind. Dawnseeker2000 17:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
You were asked to mark minor edits as minor. I imagine that might be tricky, since "inconsequential" edits are forbidden by the AWB policy. Reviewing unnecessary edits consumes editor time. Even if they are not considered harmful enough to revert, there is real loss of information caused by systematically homogenising links to align with current titles. It is potentially useful to have a record of how many articles are linking to a redirect.
The change I described above as "unjustified" has removed an item from Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_airliners and there is no reason on record for that removal. Your edit summary said, "Avoid redirects, replaced: List of airliners → List of civil aircraft using"; our guidelines say, "There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles." It is therefore not a justification to say you made the edit to "Avoid redirects".
I've no doubt you are trying to help, and I'm not passing judgement on the majority of your edits. Do you now understand why removing links to redirects can damage the encyclopedia? Burninthruthesky (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Information icon Reported to WP:ANI#Dawnseeker2000 AWB edits. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the week [8 October 2016]

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for vandalism patrol and WikiGnoming. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Sainsf submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs · count · logs) to be Editor of the Week for his tireless efforts against vandalism and all the minor cleanup edits he does for numerous articles. Moreover, he writes excellent articles on earthquakes. I had the pleasure of interacting with him through a GA review, and I truly appreciate his polite and humble attitude. Indeed, he deserves this award.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: 

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations. Thanks for all you do and for the way you do it. Buster Seven Talk 13:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Due to some major life stressors, I've been on autopilot these last couple of months with WP and have only been able to manage semi-automated editing and vandalism patrol, but maybe one day I can get back to content creation. That's what I really enjoy. Thank you Sainsf for this surprise. Dawnseeker2000 03:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mr. Mister - Broken Wings.ogg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mr. Mister - Broken Wings.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

1989 Malawi earthquake

Thanks for your clean-up work, earthquakes are a bit of a new area for me on Wikipedia. Re this, I actually didn't see your previous edit and just assumed I'd left that part out :). My first impression was that Mw isn't a completely intuitive abbreviation of "moment magnitude", so I thought I'd play it safe and make it clear what was being abbreviated. But if there's any ambiguity with that or it goes against the usual standard for earthquakes, feel free to revert. IgnorantArmies (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not intuitive, but it's preferable keep the redundancy to a minimum since the acronym is linked by default to the Moment magnitude scale article in every earthquake article via {{Infobox earthquake}}. Good work with the expansion. Hope this one improves your score in the destubathon. Dawnseeker2000 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

re: Valdivia earthquake

Hello, I saw that you commented after my edit. I wanted to tell you that I tried to restore the vandalised page, but somehow I didn't manage to, and shortly after another user successfully restored it. I am not an expert user of Wikipedia. It was the person before me who wanted to vandalise Wikipedia. Regards, F. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.61.226.249&oldid=747343271&diff=cur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.61.226.249 (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

List of earthquakes in Italy

If you had taken a second to actually browse through the edit history of that article, you would have seen that the indirectS mistake was done by a previous user, and I just attempted to edit the article afterwards, updating a casualty toll and fixing the typo. For some reason the latter was not properly corrected, and it remained with the additional S. I would appreciate it if before you go on a passive-aggressive rant, you take the time to actually double-check what you are talking about, and to whom. Skycycle (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi and happy Monday. It was not directed at you. Those people with less than OK English know who they are. Sorry for the confusion. Dawnseeker2000 15:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit queries.

Hi. I am glad you understand that i am new to making changes on wikipedia. I wish to add the same points to the article and mention the citations alongside as to where did i obtain the information from. Is it okay if i write the same points in my own words and make changes to the topic? The sequence of the points mentioned may be similar as in the references that i am using, though.

Thanks for helping me through this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoorvams (talk • contribs) 02:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand completely. The sources that I use are often very difficult to rewrite in my own words. But that's what we need to do, and I understand that it's going to be challenging with what you're working with on. The sources need to be paraphrased as much as possible. Obviously, there are some aspects of the text that just can't be changed, but you need to put some effort into everything that can. Someone once said that great articles are the result of much toil. I'm not a great writer so my tool of choice is a thesaurus.
There's a ton of reference material on how to use markup and other style guidelines. Check out WP:REFB and WP:MOS for starters. Glad you're here, Dawnseeker2000 02:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I am trying to rephrase it and mention as many sources, citations and references as possible. Please guide me through since i am new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoorvams (talk • contribs) 02:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dawnseeker2000. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

PNSN web page

Quick question - if you're someone who keeps an eye on seismological pages, could you straighten out the PNSN (Pacific Northwest Seismic Network) page? It is currently dominantly sarcastic and focused on minor setbacks and imagined flaws, misedited by a guy we fired five or ten years ago for abusing one of our female employees, Jazzbox. Our efforts to monitor several Seahawks football games took minimal effort, resulted in national visibility and earthquake education, coined the defining characteristic of Marshawn Lynch as the Beastquake, and helped test and perfect several useful realtime web capabilities, with the help of donated expertise from Microsoft. Also the insult about earthquake early warning is simply wrong, an erroneous headline for which the reporter has apologized to me. I could explain in detail if you're curious (my email is vidale@uw.edu).

I just helped out J Johnson with the earthquake prediction page last month, by the way, hard to keep the pseudoscience about earthquakes at bay. John (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, now the fellow is quibbling with us and challenging our corrections to the PNSN article. What a nuisance.
I know, and I meant to respond earlier, but it's these kinds of situations that I should probably avoid. What I do best is the event articles, so I don't know if I could be that helpful on this one. I did want to say that I lived in Santa Cruz for a long time. From what I've read from Karen McNally, it must have been quite a flurry of activity at UCSC during that time. Dawnseeker2000 20:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Probably will be problematic. Mike means well, but has a long-term grudge against the PNSN - he even picketed our building one day! It's not a big problem for us. UCSC is still a hotbed of seismology with Thorne Lay and Susan Schwartz, even though its been fairly quiet since the days of the Loma Prieta earthquake. John (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Cor Fijneman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cor Fijneman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cor Fijneman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Hakken (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Switching pages to relief map

Why are you changing pages, particularly of cities in California (example), to use the relief map? On this map, the Sierra Nevadas clutter up the area where the pushpins are shown. Additionally, the relief caused by the Rocky Mountains creates an unfavorable contrast between the black text associated with the pushpin and the background. This violates potentially runs afoul of WP:ACCESSIBILITY for those with colorblindness. I'm interested to know your reasoning for the changes, though. AlexEng(TALK) 20:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi AlexEng, this last Sunday I created an AWB run with the following items and categories:
  • My standard list of articles (about 10,000 items – with many, but not all, California settlements)
  • All Wikipedia vital articles (9,824 articles)
  • Featured articles (4,843 articles)
Since the original run on Sunday included changing a good number of the California articles, I thought that I should load up the rest of them (via Category:Incorporated cities and towns in California) and finish it off, as opposed to leaving only a tenth or less done. During the evenings this week and today (it's a snow day in Portland) I finished them off and have seen a few thanks in my notification area.
This is the first I've heard of a potential problem about this. None of those edits have been reverted. My thinking is that the relief version is a nicer map, and if there are accessibility issues with them, it would have been brought up long ago. There are thousands of instances of relief maps being used across the various language wikis, with a very large number of them using text labels, so if this truly were a problem, the issue would have been posted in clear terms in the manual of style. This is especially true considering many of these instances are good and featured articles, and an accessibility issue would have been looked at during the reviews. Considering these things, I don't see using the relief maps with text labels as a problem. I am willing to undo anything that is truly considered a problem by the community, but again, that would probably also require modifying thousands of other articles that use the relief maps and text labels across the various language wikis. Dawnseeker2000 21:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the response. My intention was not to accuse you of wrongdoing but to bring up a potential accessibility issue. The relief version is certainly a nicer map, but I'm concerned about the contrast between the dark text and the dark areas on the map. The previously replaced map was very high contrast with a uniform light background and dark text, making the labels easy to read. I have a form of Protanomaly, which makes the current version slightly more difficult to read. However, I don't think that it's enough of a reason to undo the change on thousands of pages. Certainly, only the problem areas (where text labels fall on high-elevation zones) should be changed if any change is required at all. I'll start an RfC to get more input from the community and ping you in it. Thanks for your attention and prompt response! AlexEng(TALK) 01:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
+supplemental information: I used snook's color tool to check the contrast ratio for one of the troubled spots. It came out to 5.45-to-1. That falls into the range of AA (4.5-to-1) guidelines, but not AAA (7-to-1) guidelines as noted here. AlexEng(TALK) 01:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, I had installed the Color Contrast Analyzer, but I didn't immediately see what to look for or really how to use it. Dawnseeker2000 16:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

RfD

Hi Dawnseeker2000,

if you've got a bunch to list at RfD, you can group them together if you want. Unfortunately there's some other editor (me) interspersing his listings with yours: but it's fine, we can shuffle yours all together and then bunch them into one listing, if you're happy to do it. Don't do it if you think different ones may have different outcomes (WP:TRAINWRECK), but if you think it's likely they would all have the same outcome it's pretty safe to do so. I'll hold off, if you acknowledge, and I'll give you a hand in combining them if you don't know how to do that. (It's not hard because each is already tagged with a section tag, so just moving them into one section won't lose any incoming links from the individual redirects to the discussion: you just have to edit the day's page and shuffle them without some other idiot like me getting in the way in the meantime.) Si Trew (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks. I am not a regular there, so if you don't mind doing the bunching that would be great. There may be more to post, and I think most will have the same outcome, but I'll wait on any new items for a bit. It's just some long overdue housecleaning. Thanks for the comic relief as well. Dawnseeker2000 23:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

We wish you a Merry Christmas,
We wish you a Merry Christmas,
We wish you a Merry Christmas,
And a Happy New Year!
May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Altamel (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.

Thanks for all your help fighting vandalism. Best, Altamel (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Doug Weller talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.


1938 Kırşehir earthquake

Your list had no reason to be there in the first place, if I remove irrelevant information I'm not tasked with hunting out new relevant information to replace it, as it simply shouldn't of been there to being with.

I appreciate you adding the Turkey link, as it was relevant, but I'm not sure why you UNDID my revision rather than just replace it, as there was nothing wrong with my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.67.160.98 (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

AWB dash fix at San Fernando Valley

Did AWB really suggest 1885 – 1941 with spaces in it? That's an error. Number ranges including year ranges should be unspaced. If AWB is always correcting spaced hyphen to spaced en dash, that's something we should probably get someone to fix. Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's most likely something different. I'm not sure about that particular change. Let me explain. My method of operation starts with an AWB run, and when it stops on an article with enough fixes that warrant a save, I copy what it's done to Firefox, where I make additional changes with User:GregU/dashes.js and/or WP:WIKED. The situation is this though: AWB catches some of the MOS:DASH fixes, but not all of them. The GregU tool catches many more, and I wasn't paying attention as far as which tool caught the instance you mentioned. Let me take a closer look and I'll report back. Dawnseeker2000 00:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
OK @Dicklyon:, I have been watching closely and have made about 400–500 AWB edits since this happened, and I've come across another situation where a spaced hyphen in a date range was not converted to an unspaced endash. It's the dashes tool that didn't catch it, so I just manually fixed it. This is a pretty rare situation, so I'll just continue to watch closely. I don't run the tool at a breakneck pace, so errors are on my part are infrequent.
Speaking of which, I wanted to expand on an edit summary about another situation that @Fnlayson: helped out with. I've been using AWB for about four years, but have really only been running high volumes of articles through it since early 2015. A few weeks ago, I came across the Fracture mechanics article that had two types of dash-related changes made to it, and I actually hadn't been aware of the difference between the minus sign and the endash (−)(–) until then. They're really quite difficult to differentiate visually when they're not sitting right next to each other (I use the find / highlight feature in the browser to distinguish). Anyhow, I just wanted to acknowledge the help that I've received on the aviation articles and to please continue looking out for irregularities. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 03:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I agree the en dash and minus are hard to distinguish. In the old days, an en dash was commonly used for minus (being about the same width as the plus), but with unicode it gets its own code point, so life gets a bit more complicated. Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

1841 "Caída da Praia" earthquake edits Comment

Thanks for correcting my accidental deletion of a line in the template for 1841 "Caída da Praia" earthquake. I must have deleted it when I was pasting data into the template. As far as your comment on my previous edit, perhaps I used the word "correct" improperly on the edit comment. However, I was correcting the coordinates I myself entered into the template because I used the incorrect epicenter coordinates when I first added them to the article. I am in the process of updating another earthquake article that is missing coordinates and other template values, so if you have any other pointers, please let me know. Thanks. Nancystodd (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)nancystodd

I apologize. I hadn't seen that you made a couple of edits. All good, I didn't make any changes to the article; I just wanted to pass along that it would be quite the merry-go-round if we all went around correcting each other based on different sources, as I'm sure you're aware. Thanks for correcting my correction! Dawnseeker2000 00:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hôpital Albert Schweitzer

Hello Dawnseeker2000! There is currently an ongoing discussion on this hospital's talk page that has since been stagnate. Formerly two independent articles, Albert Schweitzer Hospital in Gabon and the current which was solely used for a hospital in Haiti that share the same name (both use French as an official language) has recently had the contents of Gabon's hospital merged with the Haiti article. Prior to the merge I did not even know it was taking place, for whatever reason. Opposing editor and I differ on whether the two hospitals are independent. More of this discussion can be found on its talk page. I would much appreciate a third opinion on the matter. Thank you kindly. Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 128.40.9.164 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I've stepped into this

I just noticed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:83.136.45.134&diff=prev&oldid=770169742 Is this an anon sock of a blocked user? That would be compelling reason to revert. I reverted since the anon's edit seemed reasonable and your revert was unexplained at the time. Is there an SPI for this? Who was the blocked editor? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, here's a little more detail on what's going on. The one IP was blocked for adding inappropriate categories, but there's also this issue of adding redlinked categories. I've communicated this to various IPs that are located in Dublin and have been used by this editor, but there has never been a response. Adding non-existent categories isn't a huge problem, but the lack of communication and block evasion is. Also, I wish there was a method to add an edit summary when doing mass rollbacks. Dawnseeker2000 22:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding your recent message

Hello! You messaged me with the request to stop making unconstructive edits regarding my change to the page List of natural disasters by death toll. I would be glad if you could clarify why the edit was seen as unconstructive, as all I did was fix a slight formatting error in one of the tables. I have made a screenshot of how the table appeared at the time before my edit, and how it still appears at the time of this message.

You also sent another message some time later informing me I might be blocked from editing Wikipedia if I vandalize Wikipedia, also indicating I did so in the mentioned article. Since I made no further edits aside from the one you already messaged me about, I'm confused what caused the further warning, and how the small formatting fix could be considered vandalism in any way.

I would be thankful if you could clarify your warnings to help me understand any mistakes I might have made. 2A02:810D:AF40:6AC:45EF:55BA:E722:1087 (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm sorry that I left these messages for you. They were left in error. Please look at the page history, specifically the edit at 08:36, March 29, 2017‎ where an anonymous user left the edit summary "fixed typo". What was changed during that edit? They changed an endash to a hyphen (which is contrary to MOS:DASH). I reverted that as unhelpful (even though that it actually resolved the template error, which I hadn't seen yet, as you all had). I was editing on my phone today and that had some influence on not seeing that template error. There is so much trolling on WP that that is what I assumed was going on here. Thanks for the fix, and apologies again for the completely out-of-place messages. Maintaining WP is a bitch and sometimes these things happen. I'm sorry that happened to you, Dawnseeker2000 02:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick answer, and no worries! Nothing happened, after all; I was only somewhat confused because of the messages. I understand the headache that comes from dealing with trolling. Nothing to be sorry for. 2A02:810D:AF40:6AC:45EF:55BA:E722:1087 (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit to induced seismicity page

Hello,

can I ask you why you deleted the citations I have added on the page of induced seismicity?

Those are scientific articles that prove exactly what was stated in the page, and I don't see the reason for removing them (especially when there is a "citation needed").

You write that I should not add my own paper, then read my paper and cite it yourself. You can find it on reasearchgate. Also one of the two citations I added it was not mine, and it was removed anyway.

best, Ap rinaldi (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be best to not submit papers that you have co-authored as sources for any article. As I said in an edit summary, "If it's appropriate, please let someone else add your paper". Also, it is likely that the account (14:29, October 17, 2008 User account Wulwife (talk | contribs)) is related to you, as prior to yesterday it had zero edits. The first edit on that account in more than eight years of inactivity was to the article that we're discussing and re-added the citation to the article that you co-authored and previously inserted:
  • Grigoli, Francesco; Cesca, Simone; Priolo, Enrico; Rinaldi, Antonio Pio; Clinton, John F.; Stabile, Tony A.; Dost, Bernard; Fernandez, Mariano Garcia; Wiemer, Stefan (2017-01-01). "Current challenges in monitoring, discrimination and management of induced seismicity related to underground industrial activities: a European perspective". Reviews of Geophysics: 2016RG000542. doi:10.1002/2016RG000542. ISSN 1944-9208.

Dawnseeker2000 15:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, is it that a rule of wikipedia that I cannot add my own citation? By the way, you are mixing two modifications. Even if this Wulwife is related to me, you have to check before deleting something. Please check what I had modified: I have only added two citations to something that needed citations and changed one of the reference to the journal article. Secondly, I can understand your concern about adding one of my own paper, which is not the one you mentioned, but this other:

  • Rutqvist, Jonny; Rinaldi, Antonio P.; Cappa, Frédéric; Moridis, George J. (March 2015). "Modeling of fault activation and seismicity by injection directly into a fault zone associated with hydraulic fracturing of shale-gas reservoirs". Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 127: 377–386. doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2015.01.019.

But why do you also remove the citation to Atkinson et al. (2016) related to Alberta earthquakes??? Again as I said, if you want, just read the paper by yourself to check that is saying exactly what it is written on page instead of deleting modifications!

Finally, a word about what wulwife inserted: what is wrong with that? he/she only added a reference to the case of Castor, which was never mentioned in the page. Is that wrong? Again, instead of just deleting the modification, you should read the cited paper to understand whether it is appropriate or not. Sorry but you cannot judge yourself, not even if you are the most expert in the world about induced seismicity. Ap rinaldi (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

earthquake Recovery Minister

We have a ministerial title in New Zealand called Earthquake Recovery Minister; dropping the leading capital is thus not the right thing to do. Maybe you can teach AWB this exception, or look through the edit more closely before you hit save. Thanks!

I did see both changes but didn't deselect it for some reason. Thanks for the save. Dawnseeker2000 00:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Airbus

Hi,

I am not sure if kilomtrE is the right english word :), that is way i changed it to kilometEr. and I guess it should not be a space between 2016 and ;.

Could you please let me know why did you put it back?

take care — Preceding unsigned comment added by Museagle (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Museagle, it was the edit prior to mine that I think you're inquiring about. Have a great weekend! Dawnseeker2000 19:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Try what again?

Hi Dawnseeker2000. You reverted my edit to Oxygen with edit summary: "Could you please try that again." Please clarify, as I don't know what you mean. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I couldn't resolve that on my own. I was doing an AWB run when I discovered it, and the majority of your change is fine, but I could not tweak anything because I didn't know what was meant. Here is the text that caught my eye:

Pure or nearly pure O2 use in diving at pressures higher than atmospheric is usually limited to rebreather, or decompression use at relatively shallow depths (~6 meters depth, or less).[98][99] or , or medical treatment in recompression chambers at pressures up to 2.8 bar.

I could have done this:

Pure or nearly pure O2 use in diving at pressures higher than atmospheric is usually limited to rebreather, or decompression use at relatively shallow depths (~6 meters depth, or less),[98][99] or medical treatment in recompression chambers at pressures up to 2.8 bar.

But seeing it was an unfamiliar featured article, I chose to not save it & instead let you refine it. This is me just being cautious, that's all. Dawnseeker2000 18:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

That correction of the typo would have resolved the problem. I did not notice it. I will go fix it now. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Creeperbrine360 blocked

I have blocked User:Creeperbrine360 to prevent immediate further disruption and to encourage him to communicate on his talk page. Moriori (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Aerion AS2

I'm just letting you know about a problem with a script you used at Aerion AS2 (diff). It put an en dash in a parameter to a template. The template requires a hyphen, although it outputs the correct dash. This is just FYI, no need for a reply. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Need help :)

Is Karachi the largest city in the world? Because Wikipedia says: Karachi is the largest city in the world. List of largest cities Kdh (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Squirrel Nut Zippers - Hell.ogg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Squirrel Nut Zippers - Hell.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

ESL

I am not sure at which editor you intended to point your edit summary. Did you say that I should consider whether my edits are truly helpful? —usernamekiran(talk) 01:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the original editor that posted the article. I thought twice about leaving that edit summary but I see a real problem. I hope you were not offended. The English Wikipedia is challenged with the creation of informative, concise, and readable articles. The bulk of them are written by English speaking editors, and I think it's an unnecessary complication that we have ESL editors coming in posting content that is unclear or unintelligible. Dawnseeker2000 01:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Yes, sorry, I was offended a little by your edit summary as I thought it was intended for me. But after reading your reply here, I am laughing at myself. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 02:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Cosmetic edits using AWB

Edits such as Special:Diff/789792242 using AWB are rather discouraged, because you're making extremely minor changes that almost no one will actually notice. Whether a page uses a dash, endash, or emdash is largely immaterial, despite what the MOS says. If you're doing another change in addition to the somewhat-cosmetic edits, that's fine, but simply changing dashes for the sake of changing dashes shouldn't be done. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, used to be more careful about that, but I see that I've dipped into that territory. I do think it's beneficial to use hyphens and dashes according to the MoS, but will return to my previous approach. This was a bit tedious. Dawnseeker2000 16:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Curly apostrophe

I'm not sure why you substituted a straight apostrophe for a curly in this fix: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mountain_Communities_of_the_Tejon_Pass&type=revision&diff=702615061&oldid=672221754. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

That's something that I let AWB do. The editors that maintain AWB probably put that in place to align with MOS:APOSTROPHE. Dawnseeker2000 20:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI

I've filed a complaint at WP:ANI#User:DePiep. Feel free to comment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Paul Van Dyk - Tell Me Why (The Riddle).ogg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Paul Van Dyk - Tell Me Why (The Riddle).ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Dawn,

I noticed that you placed a revision by dropping my external link for "non-authoritative link". Sorry for being not clued up in this regard, what do I need to do to revert your change so that it is acceptable?

Thanks, Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danw124 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The only thing you can do to avoid this situation in the future is not place any more of those links. Dawnseeker2000 17:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

SFC

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SFC&diff=next&oldid=748793958 What is the problem? --Manorainjan (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Not really a problem, but disambiguation pages can be a source of confusion. Did you follow the link to MOS:DAB that I left in the edit summary? It is a pretty long page, so I'll summarize the basis for each removal here:
Remember that these pages help readers find content within the encyclopedia. They are not lists. I hope you'll use these specific manual of style entries in future edits. Dawnseeker2000 01:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I hope, I got it right now. ;-) --Manorainjan (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Did You read, what I had written on the talk page? --Manorainjan (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Phys.org, sciencedaily, etc

These sites are really harmful, as they just lightly repackage press releases and republish them. People take them as legit science journalism, and they aren't. Please don't use them; the underlying press releases are generally available and are at least honest SPS.

Compare:

Press releases should be labelled as such so readers know, and editors should treat them like the SPS they are; putting phys.org in the middle just confuses everybody and some editors actually confuse things at phys.org with legit secondary sources.

Am probably going to run an RfC at RSN in the next month or two to have phys.org "banned" like the Daily Mail. It is that useless and pernicious, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for letting me know. Dawnseeker2000 16:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dawnseeker2000/Archive_9&oldid=1203409034"