Hello, Elriana, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Vsmith (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

And likewise in the Rfc at Talk:Earthquake_prediction#RfC re neutrality/POV issues. I believe you know a thing or three about this topic, right? :-) ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to thank you for your observation. Ber31 (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution for Nobel laureates counting page. Please join the discussion: Talk:List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation#The_issue_of_.22Sherman_Fairchild_Distinguished_Visiting_Scholar.22_at_Caltech. We need to reach consensus before further editing. The discussion will set up an example for many other universities. Minimumbias (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elriana. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:SPEAKENGLISH. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply using the fact that Elriana has a de-3 Babel, for doing a comparison de-en about how to tell an earthquake strength. --Itu (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Come check us out, and if you like what you see, feel free to join.    — The Transhumanist   05:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hjort Trench, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Gpkp (u • t • c) 15:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elriana--I translated this from the French wiki; any help in cleaning it up would be welcome. Also, I saw your name in the history of List of fossil sites, and I can't rightly figure out where to list this, the site of the Neanderthal fossil Engis 2. If you can stick it in there, that would be great. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again for your edits there--and now I'd like to ask the same thing for Arago cave, which was translated from the French version by Fabdoull. Thanks for whatever you can do...! Dr Aaij (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fossil sites, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fossil sites until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]