User talk:Curps/archive6

Answer copied to your talk page

Wikinaut, please don't add User:Wikinaut/Moon-Earthquake-Theory material to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake or Earthquake prediction. There is no scientific consensus that astrology based methods can predict earthquakes. Furthermore, regarding the alleged prediction by Indian scientists, there is no mention of this in the general news media, apart from the one article in an Indian newspaper ([1]). There needs to be confirmation that such a prediction actually took place; so far there is none. -- Curps 03:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First: there are more public references in India, see my permanently updated page. Secondly: and please study the older scientific papers in the second, more generally reference section -print them and study them, please. I have them available as paper copies, even when sciencedirect does probably not allow you to download them, because http://www.sciencedirect.com is for registered users only. A good library could probably supply you also with paper copies of the Tamrazan article from 1967. The Venkatanathan et al. article "Planetary configuration ...." can be retrieved via the net, but the server is very slow and the download took about half an hour for the 8 PDF pages. --Wikinaut 07:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

complaining about your reverts/changes to Earthquake prediction and 2004 Indian ocean earthquake; filing an arbitration request as next step

Dear Curps,

I recently added the planetary (astronomy, not astrology) based earthquake prediction papers and references to the pages Earthquake prediction and 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. You have reverted this additions, even when they are supported by papers of more than three different scientists, from different decades and universities (see my page collecting these references and not claiming and further rights on that disclosure).

I will kindly ask you to let my changes and to not revert them, because otherwise the next action will be to file a request for arbitration for this topic. --Wikinaut 07:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(publications about their prediction....)

Curbs:

I am also wondering, why not everyone is talking about their predictions.

Please do me small favour and study, please study their papers. They made also another prediction of the Assam earthquake on 06.12.2004, which has found a certain level of publications.

Please take some minutes and study and search for yourself with google for the researches names !

I'll hold on a while with further re-reverts (I am neither a troll nor someone who wants to start an edit war).

Please make a quick search for yourself. Look for example in google:Venkatanathan or google:planetary+Bearthquake (this interwiki link does not work; I need to check if a Bugzilla exists. --Wikinaut 08:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)) or in http://www.sciencedirect.com for the authors names and perhaps in a separate search for earthquake, tide, tidal, planetary. Other scientists work is pointed to in my second reference section.

By the way, perhaps you have noticed in the meantime, that I do not claim any longer the right of having made the first publication on such a prediction model or theory. I mean, as long as we talk about their model as a prediction model, you cannot blame them for that. A prediction model as such does not say anything, so I cannot see a reason why not publishing this on the Wikipedia, at least on the Earthquake prediction pages, which is for such prediction models (read the article, there is plenty of doubtful stuff in it, for example using behaviour of live stock to be used for the prediction. Why not planets ? (astronomy; not: astrology of course)).

Your friend --Wikinaut 08:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

reply to Wikinaut

Wikinaut, Wikipedia is not the place for "original research" theories (see Wikipedia:No original research). The scientific consensus is that the position of the Moon does not trigger earthquakes, see the link http://earthquake.usgs.gov/faq/myths.html#5 which I provided you with. Furthermore the scientific consensus is that the planetary alignments of Mercury and Venus do not trigger earthquakes either; their gravitational influence is far too small. This suggestion is mere astrology.

You have not provided convincing evidence that this so-called exact prediction of the earthquake's time and location was in fact actually made. Apart from a handful of Indian newspapers (and not the big ones like the Times of India), why have the world's news media not picked up on this amazing prediction? Was this prediction actually publicly published anywhere before the quake happened, and if so, why is no reference provided to this prior publication?

If they actually sent their prediction to the USGS on December 22, why is the USGS not admitting this? Do you have some conspiracy theory to explain this?

I try desparately since two days to reach the researchers by mail and by phone from an older article to reach them for a real proof of evidence. But the University of Madras URL is unreachable and the old and revised phone number is unreachable. This is, why someone (you?) should probably now also try contact USGS. I have submitted my reference list to two German newspapers yesterday morning about 10 a.m. on 30.12.2004. --Wikinaut 08:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) (not going or supporting a single conspiracy theory)

Wikipedia operates by consensus. I believe that your views based on astrology and original research will not be the majority view, far from it, and for this reason your edits in this regard will not survive. You are not the first to try to impose extremely unorthodox views upon Wikipedia -- it never works.

File for arbitration if you wish. I don't believe you have any grounds to do so. -- Curps 08:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposal

Curbs, perhaps could you agree an ad-hoc compromise in adding provisionally a phrase such as

The following is currently unproven material, because the scientists could not be reached in Madras for delivering a proof of evidence, that they have really submitted their prediction four days in advance of the earthquake [then my former single paragraph in Eartquake prediction]. This is will be removed in due time, if no one shows evidence for their prediction publication before the earthquake.

No, reasonable proof that a prediction was actually made (before the event) needs to be shown first. The fact that big, reputable newspapers even in India (like the Times of India) have not picked up on the story is grounds for really big skepticism.

Remember, this is an encyclopedia, so anything that goes into it needs to have some credible source. The burden of proof is on these guys to show that they really made the prediction, publicly. -- Curps 09:18, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Energy

I based my calc on "Total amount of energy consumed in the United States in one month" "3.327 TW -- average total power consumption of the U.S. in 2001" according to Orders of magnitude (power) (although I may hacve used a different figure from a simliar source) multiply by 60x60x24x365/12 to get 7.884 * 10^18. Probably within a factor of 10 is good enough Rich Farmbrough 21:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably hard to accurately estimate how much power gets used... sources can contradict each other... as long as it's close enough, it's OK I suppose. -- Curps 21:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unicode

Even if most Anglophones don't use the Unicode for Kelvin and the like, I still like the idea of showing people that Unicode is used in Asian language font sets. WhisperToMe 21:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When Unicode was invented, one of the overriding principles was there had to be a one-to-one mapping between Unicode and every existing code set. So if a character existed in any legacy code set, no matter how obscure or unused, it had to be given a Unicode code point. In practice, the Kelvin symbol will not be used even in Asian text, they just use the capital K.

Adding this obscure unused Unicode code point to an article that has nothing to do with Unicode just adds confusion. -- Curps 21:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Endorse? see here please.

diff by user:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

He said he's one of the contributor who is endorsing... some org there.

I'm the one who add those exception section, especially for this guy.

--Godric 22:26, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

I think for legal liability reasons, it's best to avoid any such endorsement. But maybe as long as the endorsements are clearly attributed to individual Wikipedia users and not to Wikipedia itself... -- Curps 22:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. But I'll keep my hand away from this from now on, and let Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason do it himself. I was just going to revert his "some of" phrase, but didn't want to disrespect his original idea; therefore I added that section. From now on, whoever wants to endorse anything better declare it clealy themselves.

1949 vs 1965

The 1965 ('67, actually) system is the regional scale US-local system. The PTWC - the first modern tsunami warning system - dates from 1949. Check the talk page of the 2004 IOe for more. Dan100 22:08, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Please, could you also stop reverting to an old version of the page. The text was changed to remove the duplication of material from tsunami and tsunami warning systems; there's is no need for in-depth repition, especially considering the already excessive size of the page. Dan100 22:11, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Earthquake prediction - now having contact to the scientist

Hi Curps.

I now have regular email exchange with Mr. Venkatanathan, Madras, India. He has sent me the copy of the Email he sent to US Geology Survey and two DOC files with his prediction.

As I have asked him for permission (he confirmed), I would be allowed to publish the original data on internet pages (such as Wikipedia).

My question to you:

what would you recommend in that case, shall I start with a subpage of my Userpage to bring the proofs of his prediction - I see and understand that original research should not be published here, but proof of evidence of a letter sent tu USGS, NASA and others could be historical. I am looking forward to your answer. I can contact him at any time, as I also have his phone numbers in India.

Tom in Berlin --Wikinaut 18:58, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

earthquake, content from Chinese and German wikipedias

Those are valuable informations taken from other language versions of wikipedia, and would be great to be added to the English article.. translation takes time.. but everyone can help translating.. please move it back to the talk page of the earthquake at the time being, so everyone can help translating.. thanks.

A proposal is something that everyone should be able to comment on. Most English-speakers can't read German, so few will be able to comment on your proposal. As for the Chinese version, the stuff about aftershocks and about the 8.1 Macquarie quake is already there, and the 5.0 Yunnan quake is not related at all. -- Curps 19:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I have mentioned, it takes time to translate. I am just proposing to add the content (in fact mainly the pictures) from the German version of the same article. I myself is not able to translate everything at a time, and it is Wikipedia's tradition to have collaborations and cooperations.

Some consider other earthquakes before and after this earthquake are all related because they all occurred along the ring of fire. Yunnan and Sumatra are both located on the crossroads of Indo-Australian and Eurasian plates. I guess it's too early to tell whether all these earthquakes are related or not, but it is necessary to have them included in the article for the readers as information relating to this earthquake. -- 202.61.117.189 18:44, January 6, 2005, UTC.

Do you have any source reference to say that this Yunnan quake is related? According to the USGS FAQ (linked on the article page), there is no evidence that even the 8.1 Macquarie quake had a "causal relationship", and "probabilistic coincidence" is a possible explanation.

PS, which Yunnan quake was this? USGS has no mention of any quake there [2] [3]. The only Chinese quakes in the last 30 days were in Qinghai and Xinjiang and western Sichuan. -- Curps 19:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are no evidence that the Macqaurie quake was related, but at the same time there are also no evidence showing the quake was not related. But it would be nice if the table could be uploaded on this article so that readers can have an idea how many earthquakes have been happening around the Ring of Fire right before and after this quake.

The Yunnan quake was on December 26, i.e. the same day with this quake in the Indian Ocean. Its intensity was 5.1 (?).

The USGS has no record of any quake in China on December 26 2004 [4] -- Curps 21:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Curps.

I'm surprised you re-expanded that Sun UK story. I notice that the cited article fails to mention "bobbing boats" and the stuff about "telling mommy" is extremely tangental. The Sun UK has been known to manufacture stories and is the sole source for this tabloid yarn. -- Zosodada 03:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi again,

Please note that your "more credible source" also cites the Sun which was the primary source. -- Z. PS: Please bear in mind that fewer words are better -- the article is overgrowing again.

2004 Asian Tsunami

Hi Curps,

I realised now why your name pops up every now and then at the "2004 Indian Ocean earthquake" ... you are the initiator. (congrats !)

I am the one that suggested the "2004 Asian Tsunami" out of good intentions to benefit the Wiki-community as this is the term frequently used by the media ... nobody except your article refers to the disaster as "Indian Ocean earthquake" as it did not cause the death tolls, it was the tsunami that killed and the world is responding to the aftermath of the Asian Tsunami, not the Indian Ocean earthquake.

Now, (let's settle some scores) ... you (Curps) have deliberately deleted my comments on the proposal of using "2004 Asian Tsunami" at "2004 Indian Ocean earthquake" article discussion site. This action is not only distasteful, it is unethical.

The deleted portions can be found at ;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake&diff=prev&oldid=9163418

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake&diff=next&oldid=9163418

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake&diff=prev&oldid=9163447

Text that were deleted were ;

"The term "AsianTsunami" has upto 50 hits in Yahoo and "Asian Tsunami" has 1,030,000 hits. Goggles seems to be joining-in too with "AsianTsunami" at 135 hits & "Asian Tsunami" with 3,350,000 hits."

"Change the title ... please."

"The tsunami was the cause of the massive deaths among the nations, not the earthquake per say ... and lots of people are calling it so NOT the Indian Ocean Tsunami or Earthquake !!!"

My appreciation to you Curps on the maintenance for the article page but I hope you allow free speech & friendly suggestions as much as it is possible.

[User:kenkam (talk)] 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Table

Many thanks. Adam 03:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Move of my user page

I noticed that you moved my user page back from User:Paul August (bastard administrator). Thanks. I assume some kind soul moved it there. Out of curiosity do you know who? Paul August ☎ 06:05, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. Paul August ☎ 06:22, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Good job

Just wanted to thank you for all your contributions to the Indian Ocean earthquake article. I've been following the progress of it and without a doubt it has to be one of the fastest growing articles in Wikipedia history! A good portion of it was your work, pat yourself on the back :) bernlin2000 ∞ 03:41, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. -- Curps 05:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Questions

You seem to be asking alot of them :P. If you want to know why I was talking around so much try going here. My "test" inflamed a few people, but certainly caught some attention... gadfium was nice enough to show why my "test" went undetected, but my second one lasted for alot less time [5]. bernlin2000 ∞ 06:12, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Herschel and "negative"

You're right; I got the two Herschels confused. I was digging up references to *when* William had coined the term "asteroid" and ran across the "negative" one. Glad you caught that.

Urhixidur 04:40, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have left you a message, but I knew you would catch it in your watchlist. You are doing a lot of excellent work, I haven't done much in the astronomy pages lately. -- Curps 04:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Compliant against Curps on vandalism of articles

Curps,

Please stop your blatant deletes on other's articles-at-work. Although your contributions were originally welcomed, your opinion on what is good for the articles involved is questionable. Your action of deleting other's add-on is causing much cause for concern to me and other users. [(See another user's compliant on you Curps !)]
I hereby firmly instruct you to stop your unwanted attacks so as to avoid intriducing conflicts and sharp disagreement on your articles. I suggest you do what you feel you are most happy with your initiated article 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and leave other's contribution on building other article series on the same event alone. You attitude to other's genuine contribution is not in Wiki's original intent.
The Asian Tsunami was triggered by an earthquake in the COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA (if we want to be precise) not exactly in the Indian Ocean per say. To specifically state that the event is a 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake undermines the series of important events that followed after it namely the devastating asian tsunamis, the asian tsunami aid efforts, the asian tsunami aftermath, the asian tsunami news and current coverage as it happens etc. That is why everyone else (3.5 million hits) on the net creates sites and calls the event the asian tsunami not some earthquake ... [(see table on hits by search engines)] There may be more than a few hundred earthquakes every week in the Indian Ocean but there was only one asian tsunami that had the world stand-up and pay attention to it ... leave my edits on my own initiated articles alone ... please !! kenkam 05:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For anyone else reading this, please see

and for general background

Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

-- Curps 06:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It always means something when people start accusing you of vandalism. Of course, what it means depends on the circumstances. In this case, it's reflecting very poorly on Kenkam. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Curps, for what it's worth, just wanted to say I'm impressed with how you've dealt with Kenkam. You haven't succumbed despite his repeated attempts to provoke you, and that's admirable. I hope you realize that everyone else sees how silly these claims are too. Hopefully he'll realize it also, back down, and refocus his energy. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 08:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Curps, my thanks too for keeping a cool head on this issue, and even more so for your contributions to the earthquake/tsunami articles. - Jpo 04:40, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Earthquake prediction papers by Mr. Venkatanathan -- how to deal, where to place the proofs ?

Dear Curps,

I have the prediction papers (2 doc files, one e-mail) and Mr. Venkatanathan's permission to publish it where I want. This gives admittedly not fully evidence or proof of sent. However, as time goes by, we will see, if he has other good predictions as he did for this Assam Eartquake begin of december 2004, which already brought him into the press. If you can tell me the best place to publishe his papers here (they are in close relation to the Sumatra/Indian Ocean Earthquake), please let me know.

I personally regard the ignorance of NASA and USGS as important enough to publish Mr. V's papers here on Wikipedia, but my POV does not count, I admit. Let me know, how you think about me to publish some parts Mr V's papers on the discussion page to Indian Ocean Earthquake.

At least, you could re-create there the link to my page User:Wikinaut/Moon-Earthquake-Theory - it is no longer claiming my first right of disclosure, because I show the two russian papers dated 1967 and 1968 of Mr. Gurgen P. Tamrazyan, who was the first with statistics of the influence of Moon and other tides and forces in his article "Principal Regularities in the Distribution of Major Earthquakes Relative to Solar and Lunar Tides and Other Cosmeic Forces" ICARUS 9, 574-592 (1968). Tamrazyan (1967/1968), Venkatanathan (2004) and M.E. Nitsche (2002 conference of International Association for Mathematical Geology, exact reference on my page) have proved, that prediction of big earthquakes based on planetary gravitational fields is reliable, you cannot ignore that references any longer.

But I am only asking: where to place such a page in Wikipedia. It is strongly related to Earthquake prediction, where you have also deleted my short link to my page. --Wikinaut 22:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)