Jump to content

User talk:Dora the Axe-plorer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Hello, Dora the Axe-plorer, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Mikenorton (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Thanks

Thanks for the 1946 Sagaing Earthquake article, it's looking good. Mikenorton (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the title slightly to match wikipedia's manual of style. Mikenorton (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1912 Maymyo earthquake has been accepted

1912 Maymyo earthquake, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— Sagotreespirit (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Ways to improve Haiyuan Fault

Hello, Dora the Axe-plorer,

Thank you for creating Haiyuan Fault.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Some of the sections (Tectonic setting, Tianzhu seismic gap, and Seismicity) don't cite any sources. I assume they are supported by the citations in the other sections - since you're familiar with the sourcing, would you be able to add the relevant sources to support that content? Cheers

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Girth Summit}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

GirthSummit (blether) 13:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Hi @ User:Girth Summit, sources for the geology section of the article are in the reference list, I shall have them cited, thanks for highlighting the issue : ). --Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Dora the Axe-plorer, no worries. I don't know how familiar you are with the cite tool, but usually if there's a source I'm going to use once I give it a refname - that adds it to the 'named references' drop-down menu, so you can easily repeat citations. Let me know if you want any help with that. cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:21, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Citations

Hi, as you will have noticed, I've been going through the Main Himalayan Thrust and Main Frontal Thrust articles, which are very useful and in both cases make a good start, filling in the citations. Putting as much information in as possible is generally considered to be the best way of doing things as it helps other users to get hold of the sources for themselves if they want. I think that it's particularly important to include the authors, if that information's available and a doi, where it exists. I find that using Wikipedia:ProveIt is helpful, which you can enable by following the instructions on that page. On another matter, I prefer to use actual names when naming citations e.g. <ref name="Smith_etal_2016"/>, rather than the anonymous <ref name=":0"/>, which gives no clue as to the actual source used. Of course it's up to you whether you use one or the other, this is just a suggestion. Anyway, keep up the good work. Mikenorton (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mikenorton: Hi @ User:Mikenorton, I appreciate you reaching out to me to address this issue, I shall take note of that. Thank you for reformatting the citations and improving my other articles. : ) Warmly, --Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Aegean Sea earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aegean Sea earthquake. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Invite

Please accept this invitation to join the WikiProject Earthquakes (WP Earthquakes), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with Earthquakes. WP hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming Earthquake. Simply click here to accept!

Cristianpogi678 (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
This is an award for you great contributions in List of earthquakes 2020 Cristianpogi678 (talk) 08:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of earthquakes in 2020, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maule and Constitución.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

List of earthquake

If you want, you can put information in it Draft:Lists of earthquakes by year Dam222 🌋 (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Dora the Axe-plorer. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

1839 Martinique earthquake

Hi this article is titled 1839. Turkey the extra is about 1893. Also the sentence “ This earthquake may have triggered an eruption on Mount Pelée in 1851 and 1902.” doesn’t really make sense. You may still be editing it I guess. All the best Mccapra (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mccapra: What do you mean by "Turkey the extra is about 1893."?--Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry! That was autocorrect turning my words into gibberish. I meant that while the title is about 1839, the text is about 1893. Mccapra (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mccapra: Noted, I've recorrected that part of the article. I hope it can be understood now.--Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Great yes it is fine now. You still have the 1839/1893 thing. If the correct date is 1893 I can move the article to the correct title if you like. Mccapra (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mccapra: I actually can't see anything related to 1893 in the article. The correct date is 1839.--Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

No I changed it a few hours ago. If you go to ‘view historyk you can see that originally the first sentence talked about 1893, but reading the whole article it was clear that 1839 was what you meant. All the best Mccapra (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mccapra: Thanks for recorrecting the date.--Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your contributed article, 2020 Croatia earthquake

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, 2020 Croatia earthquake. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – 2020 Petrinja earthquake. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2020 Petrinja earthquake. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 deleted 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Stryn (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 2021 in aviation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on 2021 in aviation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "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 deleted 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. Opal|zukor(discuss) 22:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 in aviation moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 2021 in aviation, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Please do not misuse speedy deletion. Blanking the article yourself and nominating it for deletion is not a good way to request deletion. Instead, you can nominate articles for deletion according to the WP:Deletion process. CrazyBoy826 01:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Chirakkal Kalidasan

I saw that you placed tages the article with speedy deletion. I have contested the deletion. The elephant is the fourth tallest animal in Kerala. The subject has also acted in several movies also. Its is regular participatant in the famous Thrissur Pooram. Thankyou Kashmorwiki (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmorwiki: I just don't see anything notable other than the subject's height (not sure how's that important), appearance in some movies, and a festival. Farewell.--Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all I want to tell you that elephants are considered as an important figures in the culture of Kerala. They are often given celebrity status. Just note that Thrissur pooram is one of the largest temple festival in India. Only some elephants get the opportunity to participate in that. This is one among that. I hope you got the point. Thankyou Kashmorwiki (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmorwiki: To me, the subject does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines (same goes with some of the individual elephant articles), just because individual elephants are "given celebrity status" doesn't mean they meet the guidelines required so they can have a stand-alone article.--Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to stress the point that these elephants are the participants of ine of the largest temple festival in India. Not all elephants have done that. And articles for those elephants only currently exists here. So I just want you to understand the importance of these elephanrs in Kerala culture. Cheers. Happy editing Kashmorwiki (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Hi I’ve just reviewed 1942 Ecuador earthquake. Thanks very much for creating this. Happy editing! Mccapra (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mccapra: Thanks 😁🐣--Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Dora the Axe-plorer! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 00:49, Friday, February 12, 2021 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

DYK for 1888 Ritter Island tsunami

On 17 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1888 Ritter Island tsunami, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1888 eruption of Ritter Island reduced the 780-metre tall (2,560 ft) volcano to a height of just 140 metres (460 ft)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1888 Ritter Island tsunami. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1888 Ritter Island tsunami), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Great DYK fact! And also glad we now have an article on the eruption (I'm surprised it took us this long)! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

{{u|Sdkb}} talk Oh WOW I never knew about that (When was the last one?)!! Thanks for your response, I'm glad you found it interesting. :) --Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

Your DYK hook about the 1888 Ritter Island tsunami drew 17,050 page views (710 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks so far during the month of February and has earned a place on the Best of February list. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for improving 2021 Fukushima earthquake,the graphics and the correction was nice. You can improve it more soon. Thank you! a_liza aliza's chat, lila's chat/aliza's mess, lila's mess 14:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Quick note on 2021 Fukushima earthquake

Thanks for your edits to 2021 Fukushima earthquake.

I am not sure if the intensity table is actually necessary since we already have a USGS shakemap. I would not be opposed to changing the USGS shakemap to one from the JMA though. Aasim (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I decided to move the image of the shakemap down to where you put the "intensity" table. A table is clunky and can be difficult to read; hence why graphs and other charts. I think there may be a way to get the alt text in there where we can describe the seismic intensities of the earthquake. And since the earthquake has made international coverage, I think it would not be a bad idea to use both MMI and JMA scales when describing the intensity of the shaking. Aasim (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
@Awesome Aasim: Since this event occurred in Japan, it would be better to include the JMA table. In addition, there r other Japanese earthquake articles with a similar table featured.
Discussion started at Talk:2021 Fukushima earthquake#Is a seismic intensity table really necessary?. Aasim (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Userbox

Thank you for incorporating my userbox into your user-page! Interops (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Miau

Mr. Dimentio (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2021 Ghotki train collision

On 7 June 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Ghotki train collision, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. BorgQueen (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination: April 1923 Kamchatka earthquake

Hello! Your submission of April 1923 Kamchatka earthquake and tsunami at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. In my view, it still needs some further discussion, a few tweaks and probably reformulation, but the nomination itself is pretty strong. And yes, good job on creating the article from zero - it is actually decent. Assuming you know Russian very well, I offer my help translating it (strangely enough, the Russian Wikipedia hasn't got the article) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for April 1923 Kamchatka earthquake and tsunami

On 20 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article April 1923 Kamchatka earthquake and tsunami, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although the April 1923 Kamchatka earthquake had a surface-wave magnitude of 6.8 to 7.3, its tsunami was larger than that of the magnitude-8.4 earthquake in February in the same region? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/April 1923 Kamchatka earthquake and tsunami. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, April 1923 Kamchatka earthquake and tsunami), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

April 1923 Kamchatka earthquake - issues

First of all, congratulations on the enormous traffic that the article has got thanks to your DYK nomination. As I promised, I have translated your article into Russian (see here), but I encountered several issues that were not at all obvious when I was reviewing it for DYK (and that's one of the reasons I asked for assistance).

1. The epicentre of the earthquake was suspiciously close to the Kamchatka-Aleutian Triple Junction, so talking about Pacific plate only might be a little risky. The types of plate boundaries are the same, but the question is whether we should mention the North American plate.

2. The description of the tsunami earthquake as related to the earthquake contradicts the main article. It says here that the earthquake released short high-frequency energy bursts, while the main article says that the point of tsunami earthquakes is that they release it gradually. These should be reconciled. Probably some source would help.

3. I have put the "failed verification" template, as the article cited says nothing about 1923 earthquake - you seem to have extrapolated findings from Mexico on Kamchatka. What I found is that some people did not wait in their houses and simply went away, but I don't really have access to printed publications from Russia, and maybe something was there and I have no idea about it.

I think that you may find other changes from the direct translation from English rather useful. Cheers. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki: Hello, thanks for improving the article after the review. So addressing the first issue, none of the research publications made any references to the triple junction and its relation to the earthquake. The "North American Plate" there is really the Okhotsk Plate. It's a minor independent tectonic plate so most simplified plate tectonic diagrams sometimes include the region as part of the North American Plate.--Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
As for the second and third issues the NGDC (and another Russian source) claimed the earthquake had a maximum intensity of X, which contradicts what a tsunami earthquake is and the descriptions doesn't seem like the earthquake so intense to that extent. The highest intensity from a tsunami earthquake that I know is the 1907 Sumatra earthquake which was VII. Because of this, I'm thinking of removing mentions of the intensity.
I've fixed the one about "short high-frequency energy bursts" since it sounded off. The section about my findings from a Mexican event is the general characteristic of most tsunami earthquakes (not just that one); little to no shaking even at the coast. I've changed it from "no" to "little to no" for that. On some occasions, shaking may be felt strongly but is in few places, like in the 1896 Sanriku earthquake.--Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your swift reply.
Regards each question:
1. AFAIK the newest scientific consensus separates the Okhotsk plate from the N. Am. plate, and while they have historically been considered one entity, they are now thought to be two plates independent of each other. If we want to tell the simplified version, we must disclaim that, and anyway I'd rather we don't simplify unless we have compelling reasons to do so.
2. We are not here to dismiss scholarly sources, rather, we follow them. I have seen no alternative value and no doubts against the Mercalli X on the scale. Besides, when I was making the Russian translation, the sources said that the old factory on the spit and some buildings inland were obliterated and other buildings were pretty much damaged, too, which reads plainly like X. True, it technically wasn't caused by the earthquake itself but I still don't believe we can question the sources much. You can of course refer the matter to the WikiProject, but I think they will say the same.
3. I don't think the issue was solved. Tsunami earthquake says The distinguishing feature for a tsunami earthquake is that the release of seismic energy occurs at long periods (low frequencies) relative to typical tsunamigenic earthquakes, while here it's just the opposite: Such earthquakes produce a limited range of high-frequency, more short-period seismic energy.... Either of these should be corrected. Also, apparently (and that was the description made in Russian sources) there were pretty strong quakes that forced people out of their homes. Probably not the same comparing to a magnitude 7.3 non-tsunami earthquake, but the text doesn't make it clear. You know, we have the theoretical "next-to-no" shaking and eyewitnesses descriptions sounding like V-VI on Mercalli scale (windows shattered, paintings falling etc.). Probably something to the effect of "the damage brought the earthquake itself is smaller than what would normally be expected of an earthquake of this magnitude". Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Szmenderowiecki: I am just finding contradictions in sources and questioning their validity (CRAAP), I won't be dismissing any since I'm using them in the damage descriptions. Since no other material discusses the intensity, the X value will stay although I am still very skeptical. Plus, nobody said sources can't dismissed.
Anyways I've made some changes to the Characteristic section you've highlighted.--Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Dora the Axe-plorer. I noticed that you are a member of WikiProject Earthquakes. I am as interested in earthquakes as you are. Do you have earthquakes articles that you want to create in the future? If you have earthquakes articles that you want to create in the future, I will cooperate as much as I can. Thank you. Miamiaim (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Miamiaim:, at the very moment, I have a few articles in mind but there is either a lack of source materials to refer or I'm just very busy with work, so I can't create them. Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Just Wondering

Hello, Dora the Axe-plorer. Can you please move my Draft:2021 Coleville earthquake to the main livespace article? I would really appreciate it. Thank you. Here's the link in case you can't find it: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:2021_Coleville_earthquake

Concern regarding Draft:2004 Kii Peninsula earthquakes

Information icon Hello, Dora the Axe-plorer. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2004 Kii Peninsula earthquakes, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from this book, which is not released under a compatible license. The same text also appears at the NOAA website, but they don't hold the copyright and cite the book as a source. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2021 Haiti earthquake

On 15 August 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Haiti earthquake, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. HurricaneEdgar 08:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

miau

Mr. Dimentio (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of August 2021 Davao Oriental Earthquake

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on August 2021 Davao Oriental Earthquake requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.sms-tsunami-warning.com/earthquakes-today/us70003tqt/Pingtung-Taiwan/31-05-2019#.YS97hY5KiUk. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "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 deleted 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. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Page is a redirect from 2021 Davao Oriental earthquake which I moved (did not create the article). So now I'm haphazardly accused of "copyright infringement" from a page I've never visited ([1])? Seriously? --CactusTaron (Nopen't) 13:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
From what I can tell, this appears to have resulted from an unfortunate edit conflict as the G12 tag was applied with Twinkle at the same time (well, a few seconds after) the page was moved. DanCherek (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
DanCherek, thanks for the explanation Dan. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Guerrero earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Comercio.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Dora the Axe-plorer,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Mansfield earthquake, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Rowland and Tony Armstrong.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hello, I'm the main editor of 2021 Luxian earthquake [zh] in Chinese Wikipedia. Thank you for creating 2021 Luxian earthquake in English Wikipedia! Theodore Xu (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Chignik earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KTOO.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2021 Balochistan earthquake

On 7 October 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Balochistan earthquake, which you created and nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled user rights

Hi I’ve reviewed a number of good, well sourced articles from you over the last year and I’m not sure it’s necessary for your new articles to go through New Page Review any more. If you apply to become autopatrolled your articles will bypass the new pages queue and go straight to Google indexing. You shouldn’t apply if you’ve recently had any problems with copyright, biographies of living people or had any articles sent to draft by a reviewer. If you’re clean in those points you can apply here. Happy editing! Mccapra (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi thanks for dropping the message. Cheers! CactusTaron (Nopen't) 12:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:2021 Chiba earthquake

Hello, could you move Draft:2021 Chiba earthquake to 2021 Chiba earthquake ? 126.179.86.34 (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done the draft is an almost exact repeat of the things mentioned in List of earthquakes in 2021. If nothing new is added, it might as well be only mentioned in the list. Neither does it look like the draft is being updated or have further information added. --CactusTaron (Nopen't) 15:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
  • On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1914 East Cape earthquakes has been accepted

1914 East Cape earthquakes, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Artem.G (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Amazonas earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El Comercio.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:1586 Tenshō earthquake

Information icon Hello, Dora the Axe-plorer. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:1586 Tenshō earthquake, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Reminder to check for drafts

Hey Dora the Axe-plorer. I wanted to do a quick reminder to check for drafts of an article before creating one. Almost 7 hours before you created the Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021 article, a draft version was started. It has since been redirected to the mainspace article. Hopefully the reminder helps for future references. Have a good day editing! Elijahandskip (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Noted. I wasn't aware there was a draft. Thx for dropping this msg. Cheers. --Dora the Axe-plorer (Nopen't) 07:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read this

Would you like to help me on 2009 Vanuatu earthquakes? Quake1234 (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you specify what aspects of the article you are requesting help on?
I assume you are looking into elaborating the scientific details on these events as there are no human impacts associated. I have a few academic journals off-hand I listed below to reference if you are looking into that.

Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 12:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Request

Hello.

What is the Volcanic Explosivity Index of the 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga? From the satellite photos and ground photos, the explosion looks large and powerful. Can you add the VEI in the article, in case you find sources about it? I could not find one yet.

Yours sincerely, 31.200.22.239 (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Neither can I find any sources. I can estimate this is probably 5+ but I can't add it into the article without any verifiable sources to reference. Be patient and wait for an official statement, which could take weeks. Cheers. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 16:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. Yes, you are right of course. It is still a very new eruption, and new information will come eventually. 31.200.22.239 (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 Hunga Tonga eruption and tsunami

Hello, could you take a look at this edit? url is missing. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 11:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Volcanic Barnstar
For creating and making significant contributions to 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption and tsunami. DJ Cane (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Hello Dora the Axe-plorer. Please see WP:AN3#User:Dora the Axe-plorer reported by User:2800:484:7391:3B20:C81:A136:2268:C25F (Result: ). You can respond to that complaint if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 Guatemala earthquake

Hi! Do you know how to trim the white spaces around that table? YoPienso (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Can I assume you are referring to the large space below the table? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 05:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, mostly. A little at the top, too. YoPienso (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
The large space occurred because I added Template:Clear at the bottom of the table after noticing sections of text were obstructed by the table. See this revision for what I mean. It is possible this occurred because the edits were done on a mobile device but I can't be certain. As for the spaces above the table, there's nothing I can do about it. This is a standard on other Wikipedia articles with tables. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 07:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, it looks funny. I don't find these large blank spaces in other articles. I prefer it the way it was; all the text is visible. What do you think? YoPienso (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Do you see that to the left of the intensity table, the header "Damage and casualties" is suddenly hidden behind? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 23:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I noticed large spaces also happen in short Wikipedia articles like the 2009 Swan Islands earthquake and 1869 Cachar earthquake. Looks like are inevitable in articles like this as well. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 23:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for being so sporadic here. I see the header clearly. Did you click on the link to the diff? Here it is again. Maybe you're looking on your phone? I'm on a desktop. YoPienso (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm on a PC. I viewed that revision on another PC and the header is still hidden by the table. Drop me an e-mail if you wish to see a screenshot of what's on my screen. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 07:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2022 Sumatra earthquake

On 26 February 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 Sumatra earthquake, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Nuclear plants

[2]

Sorry for the mistake. Thank you for correcting it. 110.143.50.93 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

All good. Thanks for contributing to the page. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 01:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2022 Fukushima earthquake

On 21 March 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 Fukushima earthquake, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 01:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735

On 21 March 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes

Thanks a lot for reverting my edits before I could add my references!!!!!!!! What ever happened to Wikipedia's policy WP:Assume good faith and Wikipedia's policy WP:Edit war!!!!!!!! 2603:6011:7501:7862:FCD1:EA01:D1E8:AB2B (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit warring of two IP user and probably vandalism?. Thank you. Pavlov2 (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

IP Address keeps changing

Does anyone know why my IP address keeps changing. Because of this I am being accused of having sock puppets (WP:Sockpuppetry), when this is not my intention. I just do not want to be blocked for something that is not my fault, and that I have no control over (I am the same one that posted the comment on your talk page about the 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes and on the WP:ANI board, but if you notice, the user ID is different all three times). 2603:6011:7501:7862:A1F7:4398:206E:B13 (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

One possibility is that the device you used to edit was connected to two different networks, hence the change in IPs. If you are connected to one network in the same location, the IP would be assigned by the router. The IP address will change after some time (usually 24 hrs) when its lease time expires, so you are assigned a different one. The router will have multiple IP addresses it will assign you any of those. You may want to take this matter to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry to get a better answer. There hasn't been an investigation into the IPs yet so you may continue to raise the matter in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit warring of two IP user and probably vandalism? as well. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 23:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

2022 Guatemala earthquake

I see another user figured out how to delete the white space. Clear wasn't necessary. YoPienso (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

About User:1856 Heraklion earthquake

Hey there, I noticed that you're the sole contributor of the page User:1856 Heraklion earthquake, whose page I stumbled upon. As this user doesn't exist, and user pages that look like articles are generally frowned upon, would it be preferable to move this page to your userspace instead? Liamyangll (talk to me!) 11:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll request a speedy deletion for this page. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 12:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
It was a place I (rarely) used for article drafts Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 12:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Larissa Earthquake (2021)

Hello I am sending you this message to inform you about the changes I made in the above article. First, the changes I made were complete because I live in the area where the earthquake occurred specifically in the city of Larissa.So the information I entered was absolutely correct because as I say above I was also a victim of the earthquake.If you have any questions please leave me a message.I hope you take the above into account.

Regards Stelios283828 Stelios 283828 (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Stelios 283828 Your recent changes did not comply with the manual of style and you also deleted references in the lead for no reason. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 10:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Volcano Discovery

I am just asking, why is the website volcanodiscovery.com not reliable? What is wrong with that website that it was prohibited to cite on earthquake articles? Thank you and I hope that you will answer it soon. Thank you! Filipinohere (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

From my experience, there has been false reports or overestimation of earthquake magnitudes by the website. I've seen it enough times to not use it as a reference. The website itself gets their information from reporting agencies (e.g. USGS) stated in the Primary data source parameter. In that case, the original publisher should be cited. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 13:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you. One example is that 6.1 deep focus earthquake in Indiana. It is very obvious that it was a false report since it was impossible to an earthquake of that size and depth to occur in that area. There were also felt reports in the area close to the epicenter saying that they didn't felt the [false] quake at all. Btw thank you for answering my question. Filipinohere (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

In the case of that misreported Indiana earthquake, the website updated by adding that it was a false event by the INGV. These misreporting of events are quite common and some form of action is taken. The website was able to distinguish this false event and respond. This didn't happen when a 5.1 in Malaysia on May 26, 21 was reported by the NCS which was a definite fake. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 14:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:2004 Kii Peninsula earthquakes

Hello, Dora the Axe-plorer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2004 Kii Peninsula earthquakes".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Dora the Axe-plorer,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 805 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 848 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Dora the Axe-plorer

Thank you for creating Lampang volcanic belt.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Tara Air Flight 197

On 1 June 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tara Air Flight 197, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Tara Air Flight 197 crashes found the cause

Especially in Nepal it's going to be CFIT in bad weather due to navigation error. so know the reason it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.136.211.52 (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake

On 22 June 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake, which you created and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For your work on several ITN articles. interstatefive  15:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I need help finding some sources!

On the Risklayer site i found that the Afghanistan earthquake that occurred yesterday had an exact death toll of 1,056, but i can’t find a source for that, so I just added "better source needed". I also found that 11 people were killed and 25 injured in Pakistan, but I can’t find a source for that either. Can you help me? Quake1234 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Quake1234 Try looking these up in the native language although bear in mind possible translation errors. I'll also try my best to find sources to verify. Thank you. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
If possible, don't add it and tag better source needed. In many instances, like the case of [[List of earthquakes in 2022[edit source]]], a better source is never found and that affects WP:Verifiability. We should not add information that we're unsure about or can't verify. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Dora the Axe-plorer,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 13922 articles, as of 02:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Notes
  1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
  2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2022 Luzon earthquake

On 30 July 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 Luzon earthquake, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Anarchyte (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your contributions to the Wikiproject Earthquakes Mr. Dimentio (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

yes

nice articles Bdonjctalk 03:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Dora the Axe-plorer,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Just thought to give a friendly reminder to review your edit before saving. Your commenting on a report somehow deleted my report on AIV.Cahk (talk) Cahk (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I previewed my edits and saw what I could only assume as your AIV report above mine. I remember using that edit conflict tool set in preferences to resolve. Not really sure why yours was deleted, apologies nonetheless. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi Dora the Axe-plorer,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1959 Coatzacoalcos earthquake

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1959 Coatzacoalcos 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 Dawnseeker2000 -- Dawnseeker2000 (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1959 Coatzacoalcos earthquake

The article 1959 Coatzacoalcos earthquake you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1959 Coatzacoalcos earthquake for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dawnseeker2000 -- Dawnseeker2000 (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Dora the Axe-plorer, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed' and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned prolific creators of articles where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1902 Turkestan earthquake

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1902 Turkestan 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 SamBroGaming -- SamBroGaming (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Dora the Axe-plorer. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi very glad to see you’ve asked for this and been given the PERM. Let me know if I can help with anything. Mccapra (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1902 Turkestan earthquake

The article 1902 Turkestan earthquake you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1902 Turkestan earthquake for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SamBroGaming -- SamBroGaming (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The earthquake in China

Hi, seems like you recently reverted my edits in the article 2022 Luding earthquake. Just to let you know my rationale on the edits; firstly, the link visibly linking to (the year of) 2017 was changed because of MOS:LINKCLARITY, to avoid reader confusion; dashes were corrected with a script as were dates because of the template 'use dmy dates', which already existed previously, suggested at the top of article; I changed the lead sentece to conform to the rules in the English language, whereby proper nouns including a common noun usually require a definitive article; also MOS:GEOLINK suggests using 'the province of China' instead of linking them both seperately. Please let me know if I was mistaken! Mannofthomas (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mannofthomas Hi, this was on my end. I apologize for unintentionally reverting your previous edits. Your dashes, script and year clarity edits were fine; I had no issue with that. But "the Luding County in the Sichuan province of China" in this revision was poor English that had to be corrected. Everything else was fine besides that. I have restored the version which is "stable". Hope you didn't take this the wrong way. Cheers. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The September 2022 Afghanistan earthquake, IDK what to call it

So the thing is that the M4.8 Badakshan quake didn’t cause any impact, due to how far it is from Kunar province. The death toll of six was an initial report from the M5.1 Kunar quake, before being upgraded to 10. The "source" itself says that "no casualties" were reported in the M4.8 event while it correctly states that the other quake had caused the deaths etc.

Thank you for reading this!

- Quake 1234 Quake1234 (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@Quake1234 right now this is just your theory, can you substantiate with evidence of this? Otherwise that's considered original research. A good look at the source states the occurred "on Tuesday (Sep 6)". The previous earthquake occurred on Sep 4/Sep 5. Regarding the M4.8, it's reported by a "European seismic monitoring agency", not USGS and was described as occurring "further to the north". This likely refers to the 4.3 in Tajikistan. It's interesting that you spotted this unusual detail, plausible that Reuters is referring to the same event but there's no evidence to suggest that other than "how far it is from Kunar province", which itself is quite logical. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
This source made the distinction that there were two earthquakes days apart. Nevertheless I'll do further digging to ensure it's not the same earthquake misreported as two. Cheers. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1977 Bob–Tangol earthquake

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1977 Bob–Tangol 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 Dawnseeker2000 -- Dawnseeker2000 (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1977 Bob–Tangol earthquake

The article 1977 Bob–Tangol earthquake you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1977 Bob–Tangol earthquake for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dawnseeker2000 -- Dawnseeker2000 (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2022 Papua New Guinea earthquake

On 13 September 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 Papua New Guinea earthquake, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I need some help on my article.

Hello, your an great editor. I was wondering if you could help me on 2022 Alaska Floods? PopularGames (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@PopularGames I'm not so well versed in severe weather related events so you could reach out to members of WikiProject Weather to help out. I just came across the article and thought it needed some cleaning. If you're looking to expand the article I will advice looking up secondary sources (CBS, CNBC, KTOO, KHQ) for more information. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Administrator Noticeboard/Incidents Discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Dora the Axe-plorer. Thank you for creating Fairy Tale (novel). User:VickKiang, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article! The issue would be the lack of a plot summary, Earwig suggests paraphrasing here. Still, that website is circular and appears to plagiarise Wikipedia. Fate: The Winx Saga is a teen drama series based on the Nickelodeon animated series Winx Club created by Iginio Straffi. The first season debuted on Netflix on 22 January 2021 is copied from WP, see Fate: The Winx Saga, so this is probably a circular source.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|VickKiang}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

VickKiang 23:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2022 Nong Bua Lamphu attack

On 6 October 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 Nong Bua Lamphu attack, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

In addition to ...

... thanking you for your vandalism revert on Yuba County Five, I also want to say I like your username. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it😂 Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Dora the Axe-plorer,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Thanks for all your earthquake content!

It looks like you've contributed quite a few earthquake articles! If you have any interest Earthquake could use some love. EricFishers11 (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by. Happy editing! Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Effects of Tropical Storm Agatha in Guatemala

You have been reviewing this for a long period. Is this by accident? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. Been busy lately. I'll complete the review. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 09:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Why u removed the quake in CA?

Why did you removed the 5.1 quake in California last 10/25/22 even if sources say that its the largest in the sfba since the Napa quake in 2014, and the largest in the Calaveras Fault since 2007? Although the quake resulted in slight damage, this was the largest in the area in years. Why didn't you considered it as significant? Thanks and I hope that you'll answer me asap.❤❤❤ Filipinohere (talk) 01:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not who you asked, but WP:BIGFROG applies to what you asked SamBroGaming (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I was about to bring up the BIGFROG argument as well. To @Filipinohere, magnitude isn't a valid establishment of notability especially when one uses it to compare to a previous event. Any earthquake can be the biggest since the previous occurrence. Now that "biggest since" argument is out of the question, let's review impact; I couldn't find any reliable sources that state this earthquake caused any significant damage. Objects falling off shelves are negligible material damage that doesn't count. I removed a few entries that aren't significant but some editors just keep adding more insignificant events. The 2007 earthquake wouldn't even pass the criteria to be included in the corresponding list. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually I found a Facebook post that mentions cracks in a ceiling in Fremont. But I won't cite it cuz WP:FACEBOOK. Local news websites like NBC Bay Area don't even confirm this. Filipinohere (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a very insignificant effect that even if reliable sources verifies it, won't make it to the list. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1920 Xalapa earthquake

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1920 Xalapa 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 Bdonjc -- Bdonjc (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Seoul Halloween crowd crush

On 29 October 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Seoul Halloween crowd crush, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. dying (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1920 Xalapa earthquake

The article 1920 Xalapa earthquake you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1920 Xalapa earthquake for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bdonjc -- Bdonjc (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

AFC

Hi @Dora the Axe-plorer! I saw you're part of AfC and active with Earthquakes. If you have the time, I have a pending AfC: Draft:QuakeAlertUSA that could use some input. EricFishers11 (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@EricFishers11 Hi. The draft was declined by another AfC reviewer who gave comments. Unfortunately I have to agree with their reasons about the subject's lack of notability here. I did a quick search and couldn't find any reliable and independent sources giving significant coverage either. The draft is also tagged on the suspicion that you have been paid to contribute, but I don't have the time to fully investigate. Unless you find sources that sufficiently establishes the subject's notability and clear up the paid contributions tag, I recommend not submitting this article for review again. I'm quite busy this weekend so I wouldn't be on Wikipedia for a while. You could contact other frequent contributors that may dedicate more time to look into the draft. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Just as a FTR, EricFishers11 has been open all along about the fact that they are employed by the company, so it's not an undeclared paid editing tag – there is a disclosure on their user page. --bonadea contributions talk 11:29, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Victim compensation for a 1959 Earthquake was not in EUROs, but what is the conversion scale you used?

Many thanks for adding so much detail to the desaster sites! But while reading https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Vega_de_Tera_disaster&oldid=1074959097#Aftermath I stubled obaout hte compensation amounts givenb in EUROS. The Dam broke in 1959, so the victims most likely werer comensated in Pesetas, no? So, if you give EURO amounts, what is your conversion factor, is the inflation approprated for , etc? I' suggest something like: „Victims were awarded 10.000 Pestas, comparable to xx€ in 2019 (or whatever your source says)“. If that information is unavailable, better cut the section on victim compensation as it sounds somewhat not-right as it is written. Plus, the EURO comparison many not be helpful for people outside the EURO area, same as with 'Dime for scale'. Anyways, Please keep up the good work!

Yours, 

 Anonymous dog of the internet 87.79.106.64 (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
There was no conversion from pesetas. This source added the compensation in Euros. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for 1920 Xalapa earthquake

On 8 November 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1920 Xalapa earthquake, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first probable scientific study of aftershocks following a destructive earthquake was undertaken after the 1920 Xalapa earthquake? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1920 Xalapa earthquake. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1920 Xalapa earthquake), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I need to ask you a question

There’s a CNN article on the 7.3-7.9 Tonga earthquake that happened today. It says that there were two deaths, but the same article talked about the Hunga Tonga eruption in January, but the death toll from the eruption was six, not two. On the WikiNews, it states that the earthquake caused the fatalities. Should I change it or not? Quake1234 (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Quake1234 It appears CNN referring to the eruption in Jan. You corrected yourself so it's alright. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I only did it because the earthquake was removed from WikiNews due to the deaths not actually occurring due to the 7.3-7.9 tremor earlier today Quake1234 (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

About the quake in Fiji

That 7.0 quake was, very, very close to Fiji, unlike the similarly sized quake three days ago which you say that it is "SOUTH of". Why don't you consider it? When I zoomed it in the Interactive Map section of the USGS eventpage, it was really close to the territory of Fiji, the closest part of the country to the epicenter being Vatoa island, which is 22 mi (35 km) away. Filipinohere (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright, but you added 334 km southeast of Levuka instead of referencing Vatoa Island. I see Quake1234 added back what I removed. I dislike these references because they're misleading. Levuka isn't in Lau province like the list implies. Such descriptions should be removed. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2022 West Java earthquake

On 21 November 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2022 West Java earthquake, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1994 Mascara earthquake

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1994 Mascara 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Editoneer -- Editoneer (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1994 Mascara earthquake

The article 1994 Mascara 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:1994 Mascara earthquake and Talk:1994 Mascara earthquake/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Editoneer -- Editoneer (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1994 Mascara earthquake

The article 1994 Mascara earthquake you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1994 Mascara earthquake for comments about the article, and Talk:1994 Mascara earthquake/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Editoneer -- Editoneer (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for 1994 Mascara earthquake

On 16 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1994 Mascara earthquake, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1994 Mascara earthquake destroyed every house in the Algerian villages of Shadlia, Hacine and Sidi Ali Cherif? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1994 Mascara earthquake. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1994 Mascara earthquake), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you...

... ... for reviewing the article I created recently on The Hornet's Nest (1955 film).
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 10:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Your technical move request for Draft:Typhoon Kathy (1964)

Hello Dora the Axe-plorer. This is about your request at WP:RMTR. If this page was already reviewed for AfC, can you link to the review? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems that another editor has already done the move, so this discussion is no longer needed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Expansion of Poipet Casino Hotel fire

Can you help me expand this article? Just a simple request. I have some difficulty expanding that. Filipinohere (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Filipinohere It'll be difficult to expand if you only use two sources. I'm very sure there is plenty of sources covering this. Currently busy so I can't be on here. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1930 Bago earthquake

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1930 Bago 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1930 Bago earthquake

The article 1930 Bago earthquake you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1930 Bago earthquake for comments about the article, and Talk:1930 Bago earthquake/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

NPP Award for 2022

The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award

For over 360 article reviews during 2022. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1986 North Palm Springs earthquake

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1986 North Palm Springs 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1986 North Palm Springs earthquake

The article 1986 North Palm Springs earthquake you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1986 North Palm Springs earthquake for comments about the article, and Talk:1986 North Palm Springs earthquake/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2010 Damghan earthquake

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2010 Damghan 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2010 Damghan earthquake

The article 2010 Damghan earthquake you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2010 Damghan earthquake for comments about the article, and Talk:2010 Damghan earthquake/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2004 Les Saintes earthquake

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2004 Les Saintes 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2004 Les Saintes earthquake

The article 2004 Les Saintes 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:2004 Les Saintes earthquake and Talk:2004 Les Saintes earthquake/GA2 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2004 Les Saintes earthquake

The article 2004 Les Saintes earthquake you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2004 Les Saintes earthquake for comments about the article, and Talk:2004 Les Saintes earthquake/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for 1930 Bago earthquake

On 13 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1930 Bago earthquake, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the 1930 Bago earthquake, a witness observed surface waves propagating through a tennis court? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1930 Bago earthquake. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1930 Bago earthquake), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for 1997 Bojnurd earthquake

On 16 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1997 Bojnurd earthquake, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the relatively low death toll of 100 of the 1997 Bojnurd earthquake was attributed to a foreshock and most residents being outdoors? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1997 Bojnurd earthquake. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1997 Bojnurd earthquake), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

You didn't noticed this

I've cited one source to support the claim of seven deaths from the quake in Iran that you've said that the official death toll is three. Filipinohere (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Filipinohere Do a bit of cross referencing and updating; no other sources mention 7 deaths and the most recent news articles all mention 3 deaths only. Typically when there are multiple sources covering an event\, cross referencing would help in facts verification and accuracy. No other sources mention 7 deaths as far as I'm aware. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
@Dora the Axe-plorer There are actually some sources which suggest seven deaths like https://www.india.com/news/world/iran-earthquake-live-updates-death-toll-injured-khoy-city-northwest-iran-5873806/, https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/world/5-9-magnitude-earthquake-hits-khoy-city-near-iran-turkey-border-casualties-latest-update-2023-01-29-843022 and https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/rest-of-the-world-news/at-least-seven-dead-and-more-than-440-injured-after-5-dot-9-magnitude-earthquake-jolts-iran-articleshow.html, and while i have seen newer sources suggest three deaths, this may be due to seven actually dying, but only three fatalities were reported to most news sources, as they may have not been reported to authourites outside Khoy, or indirect fatalities somehow got rejected. So, the article might end up like the Cianjur earthquake. Quake1234 (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
@Quake1234 Information can change—evident in the links you provided—the number of injured isn't that anymore. Quoting you "this may be due to seven actually dying, but only three fatalities were reported", that's original research until you find a reliable source to prove it. Comparing this with another event is a very flawed argument—Cianjur had proper coverage regarding it's death toll discrepancy. Wikipedia is all about verifiability and that doesn't mean sticking to one source—look for multiple sources to verify a claim whenever possible before adding to the article. News sources can make mistakes, information can change, etc—we have to be aware and not blindly follow one source. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I now agree @Dora the Axe-plorer, I have changed the deaths to 3 on the article too Quake1234 (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
This discussion is on my talk page, I'm notified about any changes. A ping isn't needed :) Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tectonic weapon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1998 Afghanistan earthquake.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Something about the aftershock table

So, I removed events below 5.5 magnitude because, by the end of the month, there would be hundreds of them (which would be too many) on the table and I wanted to limit it because events above 5.5 would be quite large (to the point where they would be damaging) and notable. You can keep events of 5.0-5.4 magnitude, maybe even those of 4.5-4.9, but events of at least 4.4 or lower might need to go, cause they're too small and too many to have notability. Quake1234 (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
for creating the two most popular articles 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake and Seoul Halloween crowd crush. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 08:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Not really sure if it could be included

Hi, I'm just asking, can we include the quake in Czechia which resulted in one death and some injuries, according to one source that I've found? Recently, User:Mikenorton removed one eq in Poland that I've found to have caused damage that is mine-related (see his user page). Not really sure if we can add deadly mine-related earthquake in List of earthquakes in 2023. Thank you! Filipinohere (talk) 04:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Filipinohere The entry meets the criteria so I don't see why it will be an issue. I'm unaware about such discussions with Mike about mine-related damage caused by earthquakes. The most recent discussion I'm aware of concerns the 2022 list which appears to be event specific. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
As I recall, that was specifically about mine subsidence related earthquakes in Poland, where the local inhabitants were encouraged to report damage, no matter how minor, to the relevant company so that they could arrange compensation, a very different matter to the case described in Czechia, which meets the inclusion criteria by virtue of its impact. Mikenorton (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Radundant

Hey Dora, I think you removed a bit more than you intended here. Can you check it out please?--Gazozlu (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gazozlu because it'd redundant info. why mention the names? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Check more carefully everything that you removed, we're not only talking about the names. The alternative names do serve a purpose however. Gazozlu (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh I see I unintentionally removed a large bit below. What purpose do the names suggest? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
@Gazozlu ping if you haven't gotten the msg Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes I got the message. I see you put back some of it. The Mahase source that you did not put back says "at least 78 aftershocks and then a second earthquake" it refers to the 2nd earthquake and the aftershocks separately. It is a high quality source that backs up that this was a 2nd earthquake and not a mere aftershock.
It's much more helpful to discuss large removals first and then take action after clearing up any questions you have. It's become a bit of a mess now, I have lost track of what you did removed and didn't remove or put back. Gazozlu (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Some of the references are also broken now. Gazozlu (talk) 03:28, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh, forgot to reply to that question. The names help people researching about the earthquakes and want search and learn about the particular event, so its helpful to them to know which names the event they are learning about has gone by. Gazozlu (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Who are the people researching these and how would that be of such importance to Wikipedia? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Example: someone wants to know about the Elbistan earthquake. They may have heard or read about it in the news or from other people and they want to know more. there is a significant amount of news programs that initially reported on "the elbistan earthquake".
So a person would search "elbistan earthquake" on wikipedia and get nothing. Even if it redirects to the "2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake" article, they would be confused as to why it's redirecting to there.
Rather the best case scenario in my opinion would be that when someone searches "elbistan earthquake" it redirects directly to an anchor on the page of the 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake, exactly to the paragraph that talks about the 2nd >M7 earthquake, with a part in the prose or a note that makes it clear that this earthquake is also referred to as the "Elbistan earthquake", so they right away understand that they correctly found what they were searching for. Gazozlu (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2022 Sumatra earthquake

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2022 Sumatra 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2022 Sumatra earthquake

The article 2022 Sumatra 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:2022 Sumatra earthquake and Talk:2022 Sumatra earthquake/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2022 Sumatra earthquake

The article 2022 Sumatra earthquake you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2022 Sumatra earthquake for comments about the article, and Talk:2022 Sumatra earthquake/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation project to improve PageTriage

Hi, as an active New Page Patroller, I wanted to make sure you were aware of an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation project to improve the PageTriage extension. We recently published results of user interviews, and have some findings that we would value patrollers' opinions on. If you haven't yet, please consider adding the project page to your watchlist to stay up to date with our progress! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

List of aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake for deletion

The page is too long, it has a warning for deletion. see:Talk:List of aftershocks of the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake#Article for deletion Oddballslover (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Oddballslover there is clear instruction to not remove the deletion tag or move the page whatsoever. What's so difficult about following that. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Review request

Could you review for the new article “Subterranean rumbling” (as also known earthquake sound) ? 126.186.169.198 (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

A beer for you!

A beer on me!
On behalf of the mountain range, I thank you for promptly reverting an unhelpful edit to its page. The Sierra Nevada would give you one of these, if it could; but mountains do not have hands, only ears. BBQboffin (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Request

Hello.

Can you update the number of deaths in Turkey across the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake article? According to Turkish sources, the number of the recovered dead has risen to 50,783, as of today. (That number is expected to rise dramatically on the first anniversary of the earthquake, when the Turkish government will declare all those who went missing during the earthquake and were not recovered, as dead.) As this news is still very new, English language news about this have yet to appear.

Source:

https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2023/04/22/2883741/earthquake-death-toll-in-turkey-reaches-almost-51-000

https://www.cnnturk.com/video/turkiye/son-dakika-secim-guvenligi-depremde-can-kaybi-terorle-mucadele-bakan-soylu-cnn-turkte-yanitladi (in Turkish, but can be deciphered via a machine translator)

https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/siyaset/son-dakika-suleyman-soylu-acikladi-depremde-can-kaybi-50-bin-783-oldu-2074031 (in Turkish, but can be deciphered via a machine translator)

Yours sincerely, 31.200.18.161 (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Done Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Consider using the draftify script

Hi, I've noticed that you do a fair bit of draftification. See if you want to use this script. In addition to the move, it sends a message to the page creator, and adds an AFC template to the draft. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Trying the script now. Will see how it works. Thanks Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 10:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your work

I just skimmed 1698 Ambato earthquake and it's amazing to me that we can know so much about an earthquake that happened 300+ years ago. Bravo you. jengod (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Cheers! Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Why?

First, good wikis. But I have a question. Why did you delete my edit on the highest ground acceleration of the 1999 Izmit earthquake? My source was trusted. The USGS ShakeMap Analysis is used as a source for the PGA(g) values ​​of earthquakes. The maximum earthquake in Izmit was 2.06g. PGA? If you agree that the quake has 2.06g acceleration, I'll rearrange. Thanks. Deprem Bilimi (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Deprem Bilimi the USGS has an Impact tab where it writes in the description the maximum acceleration was 0.3-0.4g. It's better to follow the description over the ShakeMap. No other academic studies also mention the 2.06g recorded by the USGS—max acceleration all fell within the 0.4–0.45g range. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
But many wikipedist using ShakeMAP for editing acceleration. Deprem Bilimi (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
@Deprem Bilimi That doesn't justify the use of ShakeMap info over academic studies and reports Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
You don't understand. 0.4g isn't PGA. PGA is Peak Ground Accelaration. The slip was 5 meters and it's equal to 0.5g. This values for granit. Accelometers shows this earthquake had 2.06 PGA(g) distance from 2km and in Alluvium ground. So, PGA is 2.06g. Deprem Bilimi (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
@Deprem Bilimi tell me which part of "Duration of strong shaking was 37 seconds with maximum acceleration 0.3-0.4g." doesn't register with you. What is your basis or source for 5 meters slip = 0.5 g; find a source that support your claim for this specific event Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Look at this:https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/usp0009d4z/shakemap/analysis?source=atlas&code=usp0009d4z PGA is 2.06. 0.4g is current for granit, so in alluvium ground PGA is 2.06. The pure acceleration of the earthquake is 0.4g but bad grounds increase acceleration and in bad grounds they measured 2.06g PGA! in Alluvium ground. So 0.4g is pure acceleration it's not PGA!. PGA is Peak Ground Acceleration. The link which I was send you includes station datas. Look. Deprem Bilimi (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
5 meters slip in 1 seconds= 0.5g because your acceleration is 5 m/s² and 9.81 m/s²=1g. But it's pure acceleration whic is current for GRANİT. In Allivium grounds it increases. And the station datas showing us the PGA was 2.06g in 1999 earthquake. Deprem Bilimi (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
That's not how earthquakes work, that's your own conspiracy. Like I said, no mentions of 2.06 g in ground motion studies about the event. You need multiple sources to support the 2.06g value, not rely solely on USGS models. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 08:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
But Gölcük wasn't have lots of stations. Most trust stations were USGS's stations. PGA is 2.06g... You are interested in Geology, me too Geophysics. 0.4g was happened in granite ground. İt's not PGA. PGA is different term. Peak Ground Acceleration. USGS's data shows PGA is 2.06g. PLEASE examine Accelerometer datas... thanks. Deprem Bilimi (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on 1866 Bingöl earthquake

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 1866 Bingöl earthquake, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Melissa Rae Shofner's "Earthquake Proof Buildings" book

Hello, Dora the Axe-plorer Have you ever been uploaded Melissa Rae Shofner's "Earthquake-Proof Buildings (Technology Takes on Nature)" book published by Gareth Stevens to Internet Archive (archive.org)? Yuliadhi (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Redirect of 2023 Greenvale earthquake article

Hello, I noticed that you recently redirected the 2023 Greenvale earthquake article to List of earthquakes in 2023 stating that it failed to meet the notability criteria. Whilst I understand the article only had one reference, the earthquake has received significant coverage in the Australian media. This article from the ABC, this one from The Age and this one from the Guardian are examples. I would therefore gladly appreciate the opportunity to have a second chance at demonstrating notability for this article by using more references, but wanted to discuss this with you initially. Would it be possible for you to clarify further why this is not a notable subject? Thank you, Redtree21 (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Redtree21 Hello. I've been extra busy this week so I will only give my reasons in brief: the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:Events. Coverage of this event I've looked through sources online appear to only be passing coverage and nothing in-depth. There needs to be continuous coverage and sources shouldn't have similar contents across.
M4 or lower earthquakes occur every day and are widely felt by many if they strike urban areas. Usually without significant damage or casualties. They are quite routine so this earthquake in the Melbourne area isn't an exception despite such events being an uncommon occurrence in that part of the world. Perhaps it is more appropriate to just have an entry in List of earthquakes in Australia. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
@Dora the Axe-plorer Thank you for getting back to me. I am currently awaiting the result of this discussion on RfD that was started by another editor. Thanks again, Redtree21 (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Just for your interest/info

Hey I thought I’d just let you know that some edits you reverted recently at Lauda Air Flight 004, were the work of users under a sockpuppet investigation, and some of them have already been blocked. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2021Porto Final. Fork99 Fork99 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Dora the Axe-plorer,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

About the citing Wikipedia thing

I don't quite understand the problem with citing Wikipedia, since that's the source I used. Also, when you removed the Wikipedia citations, the result was no citation. Do you think this is better than the Wikipedia citations, or am I meant to use whatever citations were used in the source article CoastRedwood (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

As I already explained on your talk page: Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. If there are reliable sources in the article you are attempting to cite then you may copy the references over. SeeWP:USERGENERATED. Meters (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Mount Ragang

My notifications page says you reverted an edit I made to the Mount Ragang article. However, I looked in the article history and I don't see my user name in it anywhere. I don't see yours either. I don't understand what's going on. [rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [vandalism]

Latest revision as of 14:45, 18 June 2023 (edit) (undo) (thank)

Dora the Axe-plorer (talk | contribs)

(Reverting edit(s) by Dgndenver (talk) to rev. 1011080485 by Community Tech bot: what are you doing (RW 16.1))

Tags: RW Undo Dgndenver (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Dgndenver the revert was done on the talk page. Not the main article body. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 09:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Request for Restoration of the 2023 Doda Earthquake Article

Dear Dora the Axe-plorer,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to kindly request the restoration of the article on the 2023 Doda earthquake, which was recently removed and redirected to the list of earthquakes. I believe that the earthquake deserves its own standalone article due to its significant impact on the Chenab Valley region.

As a member of the Wikiproject Chenab Valley, I took the initiative to create an article on the 2023 Doda earthquake in order to provide comprehensive information about this notable event. It is worth noting that several reputable news sources such as Reuters, Times of India, The Hindu, India Today, Indian Express and more have extensively covered this earthquake, indicating its significance and newsworthiness.

The earthquake, which registered a magnitude of 5.5, resulted in a series of aftershocks, some of which were measured at least 4.4 on the Richter scale. These statistics highlight the severity of the event and its impact on the local communities. Moreover, the earthquake's occurrence in the Chenab Valley, a region of cultural and geographical significance, further emphasizes the need for a dedicated article to document the event and its implications.

While I understand the concern regarding notability guidelines outlined in WP:NOTDATABASE, I firmly believe that the 2023 Doda earthquake surpasses the threshold set by the WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline). It has garnered substantial coverage from various reliable sources, attesting to its significance beyond a mere entry in a list.

In light of these points, I kindly request you to reconsider your decision and restore the 2023 Doda earthquake article. By doing so, we can ensure the preservation of accurate and comprehensive information about this noteworthy event. I am more than willing to collaborate and make any necessary improvements to the article to meet the standards of Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your positive response.

Warm regards, ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 01:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The topic already fails WP:EVENT as per "An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope."
Wikipedia isn't here to create articles for every single minor earthquake event. Earthquake cause damage and casualties—not every earthquake needs an article and our goal isn't to create a catalog profile for these events.
There's coverage by many reliable news agencies but nothing in-depth or lasting. Nothing about it's substantial impact on the cultural history of this superficial event on the Chenab Valley as you claimed. It was a mildly damaging event that's quite common in this area of high seismicity.
Based on this revision, the Intensity section is completely unverified; sources are misrepresented. Impact section is too short and the sources I've gone through already tells me there is no additional avenue to expand the article—compressing in the 2023 earthquakes list seems justified. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Dora the Axe-plorer for taking the time to respond to my previous message. I appreciate your consideration and understand your concerns regarding the notability and coverage of the 2023 Doda earthquake. However, I would like to provide further clarification and present additional evidence to support the restoration of the article.
Regarding the WP:EVENT guideline, I acknowledge that the earthquake may not have had "lasting major consequences" or affected a "major geographical scope." However, I firmly believe that the earthquake meets the criteria of receiving "significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time" from multiple reliable sources.
While it is true that earthquakes, in general, can cause damage and casualties, it is essential to recognize that each event is unique and may have varying levels of impact. The 2023 Doda earthquake, despite being a moderate event in terms of magnitude, had significant consequences within the Chenab Valley region. The earthquake resulted in a series of aftershocks, with reports indicating more than 10 aftershocks of at least 4.4 magnitude. These facts demonstrate the relevance and noteworthy nature of the earthquake, especially within the context of the affected region.
I would also like to address your comment about the lack of in-depth or lasting coverage. In my research, I came across an interview with Geologist Prof G. M. Bhat, which provides valuable insights into the geological aspects and implications of the earthquake. This interview contributes to a deeper understanding of the event and its significance beyond mere superficial damage.
Regarding the revisions made to the article, I apologize for any confusion caused. It appears that there may have been some misunderstandings or errors in the version you reviewed. I can assure you that when I last edited the article, I made sure to include reliable citations and accurate information, such as the presence of multiple aftershocks. It is possible that subsequent revisions may have unintentionally removed or altered certain details, resulting in an incomplete representation of the earthquake's impact.
In light of the new information provided, I kindly request you to reconsider your decision and restore the article on the 2023 Doda earthquake. By doing so, we can ensure that the comprehensive and accurate information about this notable event is preserved on Wikipedia. I am more than willing to collaborate and address any concerns you may have by making necessary improvements to the article.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your thoughtful reconsideration and a positive resolution.
Warm regards,
❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 11:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Dora the Axe-plorer ? ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 18:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @TheChunky I apologize for the late reply. It's a busy week for me. I think it's best for you to start a discussion and gain a consensus at WP:QUAKE or Talk:List of earthquakes in 2023 about this. I stand strongly with keeping it a redirect still. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Dora the Axe-plorer,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article June 2022 Afghanistan 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1998 Afghanistan earthquake.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake

The article June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:June 2022 Afghanistan earthquake for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate:
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2011 Tarlay earthquake

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2011 Tarlay 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Mujinga -- Mujinga (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Earth-Shattering Earthquakes (Horrible Geography) book

Hello, Dora the Axe-plorer Have you ever been uploaded "Earth-Shattering Earthquakes (Horrible Geography)" book by Anita Ganeri to Internet Archive (archive.org)? Yuliadhi (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2011 Tarlay earthquake

The article 2011 Tarlay earthquake you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:2011 Tarlay earthquake for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mujinga -- Mujinga (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

2023 Marrakesh-Safi earthquake magnitude

Hi. After my first edit changing from 6.9 to 6.8, I noticed that three different reporting agencies published three different magnitude estimates: 6.8, 6.9 and 7.2. I propose that the lead and infobox give the range as 6.8-7.2. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 15:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The agencies that gave 6.8 and 6.9 specified the magnitude subtype (Mww or Mw). Note these are two different magnitude types so they shouldn't be merged. I can't find any sources specifying the 7.0-7.2 magnitude subtypes. Either way, due to the subtypes, I oppose giving a range. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The 6.8 Mww attributed to the USGS is incorrect: that agency publishes in Mw. The 6.9 magnitude attributed to GCMT is also given in Mw. Like you, I cannot find a subtype specification for the 7.2 published by Morocco, but given that most RS which publish both the USGS and Morocco estimates without distinguishing, I think we're safe to assume they are the same subtype. Finally, the GCMT 6.9 Mw citation is the agency itself. I find it odd that a primary source should trump what the vast majority of RS are reporting; where both are reported, they lead with the USGS 6.8 then the Moroccan 7.2; otherwise they're reporting only the USGS 6.8. So if we're to pick one and only one number for the lead and infobox, it should be 6.8. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 16:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The USGS subtype is Mww. Open the page and see carefully.

No, we're not going to assume anything about the subtypes if they are never specified. Earthquake information should only come from authoritative datasets, not news publications. Nearly every earthquake article on Wikipedia follows what the primary authoritative source indicate. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Digging further: Mww  (Moment W-phase)(generic notation Mw)
I read this as Mww and Mw are synonymous. If you feel strongly that the 7.2 Moroccan estimate is unreliable despite being reported in multiple RS, then please delete it from the body of the article. I truly do not understand why you would pick the 6.9 GCMT estimate over USGS's 6.8 when NOBODY in the press is publishing the former and virtually all RS lead with the latter, which is confirmed directly by the primary source. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 16:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
You could be bold and remove them yourself. FYI i reverted your edit to the lede because it contradicted the article body. Had you look into the page history, you'll make the brilliant discovery I didn't change the magnitude in the infobox in favour of the GCMT.
Again, magnitude, depth, epicenter coord., mechanism, etc ... are technical details of earthquakes that are preferably sourced from authoritative data. That means relying on major catalogs (GCMT, USGS, ISC, etc), not media reports. Technical details shouldn't come from mainstream media. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
One thing you can do is include the Mw and Mww types into the infobox and lede. The article 2022 Papua New Guinea earthquake included both magnitudes. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I haven't made any further edits because I want to be in agreement with you before making any changes.
Do you agree that Mw and Mww are equivalent per the USGS link I provided? Or if not exactly equivalent, comparable? (BTW, the New Guinea quake lead gives the range as 7.6–7.7 even though the former is Mww and latter is Mw.)
I'm sorry, but you're completely missing my point about what most RS are reporting. The USGS 6.8 estimate is confirmed by that primary source; there is NO question that it's been accurately reported in the popular media. Yet you prefer the 6.9 GCMT estimate even though not a single secondary source I know of reports it. This doesn't make sense to me. Virtually all of readers coming here will expect to see 6.8 and, as I initially did, think that 6.9 is an error. I don't object to mentioning both in the lead and infobox, but if we're to pick only one to report, it should USGS. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I understand it's moment magnitude in generic (Mww or Mw, just different subtypes). It is correct to say "... moment magnitude 6.8–6.9 earthquake ...", without the symbols. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
This edit updates infobox and lead to add 6.8 USGS estimate, and links to this discussion in the edit summary.
This edit to the body moves the GCMT estimate after the USGS/Morocco estimates to reflect prominence in RS. If you feel strongly the 7.2 should not be mentioned at all, I will not complain if you remove it. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 18:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
sounds good Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

List of earthquakes in 1952

You seems to be edit-warring on this page, violating the WP:3RR rule. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that was a day ago. So you wrote a section over at Talk:List of earthquakes in 1952 suggesting that the IP was edit warring. You and the IP were both edit warring and you clearly violated 3RR. You should consider reading WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, and use the talk page instead of edit summaries in reverts. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
@0xDeadbeef so you dropped this message on my talk page but not on IP? Funny how you recognized my attempts at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR yet had to mention the second line.
As far as I'm concerned, IP shouldn't force their edit into the article either, especially when it lowers the article's quality such as in this case. Edits were MOS:BOLDAVOID and I was rv-ing to the neurtal version. If IP doesn't want to discuss, that's on them, one ping on the talk page is enough to get their attention. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I mean, you made that talk page message after your 4th revert. I was expecting better from an experienced editor, which is why I started a discussion on your talk page. I'm not an administrator, but if you continue this sort of edit warring behavior, thinking that it is fine to violate WP:3RR because you were on the "right" of an edit war, it is going to get you blocked. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
guidelines.
IP's changes are unsourced. That doesn't count to 3RR; there's no source to support the title unless they introduced a source I wouldn't bother.
I've modified the edits to consider IP's interest and intentions. There's won't be further discussions about this anymore. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Oh, it definitely counts as 3RR. Which part of WP:3RRNO are you claiming? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It just a mistake that i made

Hello, it's me, Bakhos. Five days ago, I edited the "2024 southern Peru earthquake" page, mistakenly switching VI (Strong) to VIII (Severe) in the "Earthquake" section. I thought it was VIII (Severe), but it’s actually VI (Strong). I didn't hijack it, it was just a mistake that I made. By the way, please don’t make fun of me. You said "whoever you are" because I might have minor depression, which makes it hard for me to talk to people, but sometimes. I worry that someone might make fun of me for no reason. Bakhos2010 (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bakhos2010, this edit falls under WP:HIJACK (content was altered without introducing a new source, regardless of the context). At the time of my edit, I didn't bother to look through the history list to find the editors who did that (there were a few), but the MMI was altered several times prior. It wasn't meant to be a personal attack at you, rather, a message to editors, specifically those who have or intend to change the MMI, to introduce new references if altering a cited paragraph. "Whoever you are" was intended for all editors, IP or registered, not for one specific editor per above. In no way did I meant to upset you, and I hope you receive the help you need for what you're going through. All the best. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The Black Dog (song)

Hello! I've seen you made and expanding an article for TTPD track "The Black Dog", which I also made a draft for it a few months ago and is still expanding. Can we perhaps work together and combine the article to the draft? The draft is only a mile away left for AFC and it just needs more expansion and fleshing out. Gained (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gained! I noticed the draft has substantially improved since my last visit yesterday just before I hit "Publish". I began working on a separate TBG draft on July 20, and at the time, yours was partially done. Now that the article is in the mainspace it may be a challenge to request a deletion so your draft can override it, but you could give it a shot. If you transferred the contents of your draft, that's probably a quicker way around, and you retain a percentage of authorship. Do you have a specific proposal? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking of converting the article into a redirect and adding the contents of it into the draft, but transferring the draft's content into the article may also suffice. I'm more inclined for the former, what do you think? Gained (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm ok with a copy + paste replacement with your draft content if that's what you mean Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure! I'm going to do the process now. Gained (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

About Chelyabinsk meteor/meteorite

Hello! I don't know what does "RW 16.1" exactly mean. But I disagree with your decision. At the moment, there are two duplicate entries in the Category:Meteorites found in Russia and I think it is wrong. That is why I deleted the corresponding category from the article about the meteor, so that it remains only for the article about the meteorite. -- Karavadgoo (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, RW 16.1 is just a verson of the software I used for reverts, don't worry about it.
There isn't a Wiki editing policy that says two articles covering the same topic cannot share one categorie. As far as I'm aware. While both articles cover the same topic, one refers to the fragmented remains of the meteor that was recovered on site. The other seems to elaborate on the event and the impactor while it was still a large single body. Seems justified to have the category in both articles. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Good -- Karavadgoo (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1991 Hindu Kush earthquake

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1991 Hindu Kush 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of TheNuggeteer -- TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1991 Hindu Kush earthquake

The article 1991 Hindu Kush earthquake you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1991 Hindu Kush earthquake for comments about the article, and Talk:1991 Hindu Kush earthquake/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TheNuggeteer -- TheNuggeteer (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 2024 Badakhshan Dassault Falcon 10 crash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2024 Badakhshan Dassault Falcon 10 crash 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/2024 Badakhshan Dassault Falcon 10 crash until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi! Sorry for the edit conflict, I changed things and removed the unreliable source. Anyway, I want to nominate 1917 Samoa earthquake for GA, but I wonder if the article will pass, so I'm asking you if the article can probably pass or not (since you are more experienced in this topic). Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 06:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi yes the article has the potential for GA status but it still needs significant work. It won't pass a review in the current condition. At the moment, I'm waiting for four of my nominations to be reviewed. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
What things can I do to improve it? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 06:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
@TheNuggeteer You could probably expand it further and refine the language. There's a few sources covering this event extensively. I'd probably take advantage of those sources Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 09:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Also you seem to confuse impact of the 2009 tsunami with the 1917 event Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 09:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I think I should make you a co-nom. Agree? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
The "few sources" seen are actually just one source, with the other sources you talked about "milking" it. I think we can expand a tad bit with this source. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 13:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
How do you find the rare newspaper sources? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 13:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:LOONA has a list of archived newspapers so you could probably find some stuff about this event Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
The Impact section seems okay now, bit Geology is irrelevant because it's about the local island. It should be related to the tectonic setting. Earthquake section also needs work Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Also please actually use the proper title of the newspaper sources, do not just copy the header title, for example this source:
The title here is not "Honolulu Star-Bulletin Thu, Aug 16, 1917 ·Page 12 Honolulu Star-Bulletin›Thu, Aug 16, 1917›Page:", you will find the title above the news article: Recent Samoan Earthquake is Severest Felt. Doing something like that will quickfail the nomination due to improper referencing. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I have a topic ban from GA, so I don't think I can nominate the article. You can nominate it and I'll just expand the article. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 23:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 09:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

One aircraft, two aircraft etc

Hello. The correct plural of aircraft is also aircraft. Hope this helps, best wishes, DBaK (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

why did you change my edit?

I edited because in the first link from the beginning it said 187 wounded, and you put 167 Stefanbarbu4 (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

On this day

Thanks for updating the selected anniversaries. As a note, please remember to place items you swap out into the "Eligible" list (or "Ineligible", if applicable). You forgot here. Don't worry, I added it back. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dora_the_Axe-plorer/Archive_1&oldid=1257760959"