Talk:Earthquake prediction - Knowledge (XXG)

2280:"The main question that interests the reader is "Does the VAN method work?" This may be seen as encompassing three questions - (1) whether predictions are predictive; (2) whether predictions issued using this method are actionable; and (3) whether other groups using this method are successful. The answers, unfortunately, are: (1) it is not clear whether they are predictive. The VAN group has done poorly in hosting their data publicly. Raw datasets and a list of predictions including misses and false positives are not present publicly. The updated time-series method describes medium-range predictions that then trigger short-term prediction algorithms using local seismic data, and in principle, this seems a plausible approach to prediction, i.e. via overlap of methods. Mechanisms for SES generation are physical and testable. The updated VAN method remains an unvalidated hypothesis. (2) Predictions issued using this method are not actionable beyond increased local seismic monitoring and increased awareness of earthquake safety. Predictions ought not be assumed correct—with the caveat that increased local seismic activity may be taken as precursory but outside the framework of a validated scientific process. Thus it is up to the relevant governmental body to make decisions in the absence of scientific confidence. Unfortunately the data are not present to make any stronger recommendation. (3) It is not clear whether the high rate of false positives has been overcome in trials in Japan or elsewhere". 1641:). J.Johnson characterizes this VAN material –comprising several tens of papers in well known refereed journals- as “fringe” although it has been cited more than thousand times by researchers worldwide during the last 18 years, i.e., after 2002. To the contrary what seems to be “fringe” is the Criticism of VAN, because the limited circle of VAN critics comprising almost exclusively Geller and co-authors, although have published a lot of criticism during the 1990s, they did not write any paper with content critical of VAN after 2002, i.e., during the last 18 years (cf. ICEF report in 2011 mentions one only criticism of VAN in 1996). Thus, in view of the above, we restore the previous content with the updated literature, and do hope that this time J.Johnson will consent to mention also the work of VAN during the last two decades. Otherwise, it would be obviously unscientific and unfair to mention in the WP article solely the criticism of VAN during 1990s.-- 85: 64: 1946:

this version, as edited by Jerry Russel (talk/contribs) at 22:36, 3 March 2017. In this version, I tag points 1 & 2 (as recommended by Mikenorton (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2020). In view of the fact that these two excerpts distort the content of VAN publications (since they have never been published by VAN) and should be deleted, I am tagging the two VAN related sections with {verifiability} and also your edits to VAN method. If you consent to the above, we can start bona fide discussion on each subsequent addition from either side until a new consensus will be again established.--

1474:

summary: "it has recently been shown that by analyzing time-series in a newly introduced time domain" natural time", the approach to the critical state can be clearly identified . This way, they appear to have succeeded in shortening the lead-time of VAN prediction to only a few days . This means, seismic data may play an amazing role in short term precursor when combined with SES data". In view of the above I am restoring the updated content together with adding the excerpt from "Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics".--

1781:@J.Johnson: Concerning your unfair personal attacks on the VAN workers & natural time, I am not going to comment on. I would like, however, to urge strongly the WP editors and WP readers to have a look on the ISI Web of Science to visualize the international impact of VAN research & natural time and compare it with that of the VAN critics (mainly Geller et al, though Geller claims that “Geller is widely recognized as one of the world's leading seismologists” in his official site 31: 166: 1836:" is, as I said before, factually incorrect. It is also curiously similar to a view held be a previous anonymous VAN supporter here, who was linked to the University of Athens (and thus to Varotsos, Skordas, and Sarlis). So I will point out to you: if are connected in any way with the Univ. of Athens, or Varotos, Sarlis, or Skordas, then you have a possible conflict of interest, which you are expected to declare. 1823:" you are not commenting on (ha) don't exist. Likewise for "international impact": no one is using SES or "natural time domain" to predict earthquakes, and as far as I can see no one writes on these except for Varotsos, Skordas, Sarlis, and their co-authors. Who do keep churning out papers (with lots of cross-citations) full of mumbo-jumbo, but all their citations have little impact, and less notability. 1757:@Mikenorton: I understand that you reverted as there was no consensus here to make these additions. By the same token, however, I revert again since J.Johnson had previously reverted it (see point 4) without any consensus just by claiming lack of notability and in addition without providing concrete sources as I asked for (regarding specific sources for the points 1, 2 and 5). 22: 1251: 2160:

time-series in a newly introduced time domain "natural time", the approach to the critical state can be clearly identified . This way, they appear to have succeeded in shortening the lead-time of VAN prediction to only a few days . This means, seismic data may play an amazing role in short term precursor when combined with SES data".

2254:

article on its talk page, rather than here. I've just realised that I removed that page from my watchlist some time ago, when things were getting heated, so I've only now realised that EyeCont has proposed similar changes to both articles. That location is definitely the best place to sort things out

1489:

That chapter in the Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics is written by Uyeda and others, so is not independent of them. These additions seriously lack any views of seismologists/geophysicists who are not part of the rather small group of VAN supporters. That independent view is really needed or all

772:

For all of the above reasons (and because I am disinclined to take further time and trouble to save your trivial edits) I am going to revert the entirety of your edits, including the tag (on the basis it "did not belong when placed or was added in error"). If you want to restore the tag, fine, but be

1945:

At J.Johnson: My bona fide suggestion (following your own strong suggestion) is as follows by recalling the five points I explained in detail more than a month ago: Since a consensus had been achieved among several editors, published from March 3, 2017, until November 16, 2017, I now restore exactly

1679:

Mike: Thanks for the link. I haven't been keeping up with this, and that looks like an excellent source. I suppose "natural time domain" could be mentioned, but it doesn't rate more than a sentence, as, aside from "VAN" and their groupies, it doesn't have any mainstream notability, or even presence.

1230:

In Physics Today November 2010 issue the following review of Hough's book is published by Roger Musson: "My main reservation with the book is that it is rather US-centric, as even the author admits. ... Briefly mentioned is Greece's VAN project ... that classic case - it led to a great debate in the

1170:

The largest earthquakes can now be detected via gravity waves. This gives relatively accurate determination just about instantly (speed of light) when measured at a suitable distance. Suitable distances far enough for the equipment to have some time to process the result before the normal earthquake

634:

some few seconds, distinguished from whole minutes or hours. If you failed to understand this a better corrective would be to make "on the order of" explicit. Simply removing "of seconds" leaves the sense wide open to broad, and incorrect, interpretation, and the reader vulnerable to misinterpreting

2232:

Significant space has been given here for inline criticism (in fact criticism pervades the whole article). Critique without the answers addressing it is biased but the specific article is not the right place for the history of VAN method scientific debate. As duplicates between this article and VAN

1254:

saying "Events in 1999 largely sank VAN in Greece as a credible system". This refers to both a M 5.9 quake near Athens that the VAN group failed to register a prediction for (but claimed that they had predicted it anyway) and their prediction of a larger quake to occur shortly afterwards in central

2216:

I haven't had time to look these through in detail, but I'm not sure that adding so many extra citations to the Van method in this article, with no other views expressed will lead to any sort of balanced article. My impression, and it has to stay as that for obvious reasons, is that the mainstream

1919:

When you add the verifiability tag you are expected specify what claims are disputed. You have not done so, only pointing to your comment above (@ 14:02) where you mention Sarlis et al. 2008 and Uyeda and Kamogawa 2008. (Are those the claims you dispute?) That lack, plus your edits at VAN method,

1274:

is rather US-centric, and even more specifically California-centric (because of how it developed), but that in no way "justifies" removing Hough's assessment of VAN. Hough is a respected seismologist, who states clearly (albeit bluntly) what many other seismologists say more obliquely. Considering

1712:

That there has been very little criticism of VAN since 2011 is because, as Susan Hough has said, most consider VAN to have been "resoundingly debunked", and therefore no longer notable enough to warrant comment. If the VAN method, and "natural time", are indeed notable, it should be easy to show

303:" I believe the effect of this on most readers is that their eyes glaze over, and they move one without the slightest understanding. I propose restoration of the "Difficulty or impossibility" section to its previous location (following the notable predictions) and extent, more or less as seen in 1656:

I've reverted again as there is no consensus here to make these additions. As to the 5 specific points, I would urge you to tag 1 & 2. JJ the RfC linked above seems pretty clear that "natural time" should get mentioned, although that is all that it asks for. The Geller quote is what it is -

1636:

Regarding the specific points 1, 2, and 5, J.Johnson did not provide any concrete source to substantiate content critical of VAN, thus fully justifying my deletion of the corresponding WP text. As for point 4: Everyone can verify that at 06:30, 23 November 2017 at “VAN seismic electric signals”

1473:

of the article and violates NPOV. FRINGE is his own point of view. See "Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics" part of "Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series", Springer 2011, edited by Harsh K. Gupta, in the Section "EARTHQUAKE PRECURSORS AND PREDICTION" which ends as follows, just before its

1463:

The authenticity of the source (Geller 1996, page 223) i.e. "a Cosmos news (an electronic bulletin board) story dated June 20, 1995" cannot be checked. Such a bulletin board had not existed. Geller says: "A Greek colleague kindly sent me translations of some news stories. According to a Cosmos

1323:(and these are the totality of your editing to-date), show a definite tendency towards removing content critical of VAN, and adding content – usually from the small coterie of VAN supporters – that attempts to support ("polish") their results. This amounts to a taking of a side, a violation of 2440:

Recently, an edit was made which added the text "However in a 2021 paper coauthored by 37 researchers in the China Seismo-Electromagnetic Satellite, the main scientific objective of which is to investigate possible correlations between electromagnetic perturbations and the occurrence of major

2093:

Donges, J.F.; Schleussner, C.-F.; Siegmund, J.F.; Donner, R.V. (2016), "Event coincidence analysis for quantifying statistical interrelationships between event time series", The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 225 (3): 471–487, arXiv:1508.03534, doi:10.1140/epjst/e2015-50233-y, ISSN

440:

On the other hand, as writers, we need to provide clear and coherent text that summarizes appropriate sources. That has been done here. The reader needs to be responsible for being aware of the fundamentals. You wouldn't want to define plate tectonics in every earthquake article, for example.

2448:

This is essentially an appeal to authority to say what has already been said, namely "that earthquake prediction might be intrinsically impossible has been strongly disputed". I reverted the passage and added the Martucci et al (2021) reference to the subsequent paragraph. I did this because

2159:

On the other hand, the Section "EARTHQUAKE PRECURSORS AND PREDICTION" of "Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics: part of "Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series" (Springer 2011) edited by Harsh K. Gupta, ends as follows (just before its summary): "it has recently been shown that by analyzing

1974:

EyeCont's rollback wiped out some of the changes I made addressing the very points he complained of, and lost other improvements made by other editors. This needs attention, but unfortunately I am rather occupied of late (off-pedia as well as on), so someone else needs to take point on this.

1518:

on the nature of its promotion (by small group of proponents that cross-cite a lot), considerable criticism in the mainstream scientific literature, non-observance, non-acceptance as a viable technique by the scientific community, and explicit statements by seismological authorities

2217:

earthquake prediction/forecasting community are just ignoring the VAN method. What this article needs is views from uninterested third parties that show some sort of general acceptance of the method (or otherwise), so if you have some of those, they would be good to see.

2441:

earthquakes, it has been reported that, as shown in a more recent perspective, the claims based on self-organized criticality stating that at any moment any small earthquake can eventually cascade to a large event, do not stand in view of the results obtained to date by

2318:

Not true. That article was simply pointing out that the VAN group is now using a parameter named beta rather than kappa as its predictor. Still, there is no public hosting of their datasets. And it is still not clear whether their work is helpful for EQ prediction.

2089:

Christopoulos, Stavros-Richard G.; Skordas, Efthimios S.; Sarlis, Nicholas V. (January 2020), "On the Statistical Significance of the Variability Minima of the Order Parameter of Seismicity by Means of Event Coincidence Analysis", Applied Sciences, 10 (2): 662,

2127:

Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S. (2003a), "Long-range correlations in the electric signals that precede rupture: Further investigations", Physical Review E, 67 (2): 021109, Bibcode:2003PhRvE..67b1109V, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.67.021109, PMID

2233:

method article should be avoided, I propose migrating the debate there. This will result to a clean-up here. The method can be presented in a summary followed by the mainstream seismology view and a link for further reading in VAN method article.

485:

Same thing here. On the 30th you made thirteen edits to this article. Four or five are rather trivial, hardly worth troubling about. But several of your edits are quite troubling. Let's examine them. (Your edit summary in parentheses.)

1765:

works, You made substantial changes and have been reverted. It is up to you to reach consensus with other editors in this discussion, which you have failed to do. Rather than making large-scale changes, come up with some proposals.

2121:

More recent work, by employing modern methods of statistical physics, i.e., detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA), multifractal DFA and wavelet transform revealed that SES are clearly distinguished from signals produced by man made

2076:

In 2013, the SES activities were found to be coincident with the minima of the fluctuations of the order parameter of seismicity, which have been shown to be statistically significant precursors by employing the event coincidence

1915:

account with a demonstrated non-neutral viewpoint your edits here, and especially your repeated attempts to add the same material, are very suspect. As Mikenorton said on 5 Feb: there is no consensus here to make these additions.

400:

Thanks to you both! This section makes much more sense now. I could probably still quibble with the grammar and presentation, but would like to see how the current (restored) version is received by others before contemplating any

1275:

both other sources (e.g., the ICEF report) and the limited circle of VAN supporters it seems quite reasonable that Hough has fairly stated the mainstream consenus. There is considerable evidence that VAN should be considered

314:

the notable quakes section, so that instead of lecturing to the reader that prediction of quakes is impossible, the reader is first shown that the record of earthquake prediction is disappointing. This section then addressed

2131:

Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S. (2003b), "Attempt to distinguish electric signals of a dichotomous nature", Physical Review E, 68 (3): 031106, Bibcode:2003PhRvE..68c1106V, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.68.031106, PMID

1551:

1. Off-hand I don't recall if the original VAN 1981 paper is available, but the "2.6" claim has been reported by a reliable source. Which is cited, but if you find the linkage not clear enough just tag it, and I will remedy

1702:

for any sources ("concrete" – whatever that is supposed to mean – or otherwise) for that content, you just proceeded to delete it. That is NOT justified. You have also deleted content (such as "resoundingly debunked") that

1588:

4. Perhaps you could point to what consensus you allege I "violated" in 2016? And as you seem to be quite familiar with the past history here perhaps you would reveal under what name(s) you have previously participated

1561:

2. I believe the false alarm rate of 89% came up in 2016. It may have been a calculation (which, incidentally, we are allowed to). If you really want to insist on the point: tag it, and I might look around for the data

2071:

This is a literature update that corresponds to the following addition to the last but one paragraph of the section "VAN seismic electric signals" or to the second paragraph of the section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)":

2085:

Varotsos, P. A.; Sarlis, N. V.; Skordas, E. S.; Lazaridou, M. S. (18 March 2013), "Seismic Electric Signals: An additional fact showing their physical interconnection with seismicity", Tectonophysics, 589: 116–125,

2192:

Uyeda, Seiya; Kamogawa, Masashi (2010). "Reply to Comment on "The Prediction of Two Large Earthquakes in Greece"". Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union. 91 (18): 163–163. doi:10.1029/2010EO180004. ISSN

35: 2492:

is a distinct Knowledge (XXG) article. The method applies to diverse time series and not only to EQ time series or VAN method alone. In other words, NTA answers the question under discussion, quoted above.

2626: 2462:

Natural Time Analysis is already mentioned in the VAN section. Any additional discussion needs to be done either there or in its own section. Mentioning it in this place without explanation is confusing.

2051:

on February 5, 2020 at 13:50) and, in view of the fact that the above two excerpts distort the content of VAN publications (since they have never been published by VAN), I suggested that they should be

1803:

purpose here. It's clear that you are acting as an advocate for the VAN method and that you believe that the VAN group are not being treated well here. That does indicate that you have a strong POV.

1523:"). The determination made here is not my – or anyone else's – "own point of view", it is the consensus of the editors, including input from some real, mainstream seismologists. On the other hand, 362:

Why, thank you, Jerry. I was thinking we should wait a bit in case anyone wanted to object, but there's no harm done, as this in no way impairs any discussion. I'll adjust my comments to match. ~

1372:

You are not simply "updating the literature". You are removing content that is critical of VAN, and adding questionable content that promotes VAN, in a manner that (as I just explained) violates

2641: 2419: 133: 2616: 2337:

Daniel S. Helman - Education Division, College of Micronesia-FSM, Yap, Federated States of Micronesia / WHOIS 119.252.119.106 - State of Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Possible

1018: 2036:

There are two excerpts tagged in the article regarding verifiability. A suggestion was made on February 3, 2020 at 14:02 which has not been properly addressed. These excerpts are:

936: 1255:

Greece that never happened. He doesn't dismiss the approach completely, but says that "If anything successful comes out of VAN in the long run, it will probably come from Japan".

2631: 1435:

predict earthquakes of magnitude larger than 2.8" was never published by VAN - specific citation (not Knowledge (XXG) editor's claim) is needed in order to restore the sentense

425:

WP is not supposed to be repository for graduate students' theses. It would be nice if the average interested person could simply read this and understand the main points.

329:

Whether earthquake prediction is even possible is the most significant aspect of this topic. It warrants adequate treatment, and is a fitting conclusion to the article. ~

2636: 1112: 1108: 1094: 960: 858: 854: 840: 1902:

if are connected in any way with the Univ. of Athens, or Varotos, Sarlis, or Skordas, then you have a possible conflict of interest, which you are expected to declare.

319:

that is the case, mentioning both that prediction may be impossible, or merely "fiendishly difficult". Although the latter is alluded to in the section title, in the

1571:

3. Your "literature update" shows only the same old proponents refining the same old crap; there is nothing to show increased acceptance in the mainstream. (And the

143: 1459:- a consensus has been achieved among several editors, which has been published from March 3, 2017 until November 16, 2017, but J. Johnson violated this consensus 1338:

Please note: where you see possible problems the preferred approach for addressing them is not removal of content, but tagging, with comments on the Talk page. ♦

2453:

These references are not a secondary source, nor have the primary sources been evaluated in the literature. If they had, we would be citing those discussions.

1860:

As EyeCont has been too bashful to respond, I have proceed with some edits that address some of his points, as well as some other outstanding deficiencies. ♦

2611: 1637:

J.Johnson deleted “Natural Time” for “lack of notability” which has been inserted since 3 March 2017 after a consensus achieved among several editors (see

2274:"Seismic electric signals (SES) and earthquakes: A review of an updated VAN method and competing hypotheses for SES generation and earthquake triggering" 2646: 740:" the use of "M", "≥", and "magnitude". (Which I grant, as just one child, or one idiot, is sufficient to negate "everybody". So what?) But these are 1019:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140429162009/http://mtnet.dias.ie/working_group/papers/EMWKSHP_ReviewVolumes/1994Brest/Park_1994BrestReview_SG_1996.pdf

109: 1490:

those extra citations do is tell us that people who have supported the VAN method, continue to support the VAN method, which is hardly a surprise.

1381: 2621: 998: 937:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130119050306/http://develop.oes.ca.gov/WebPage/oeswebsite.nsf/Content/899D66837A2B126C8825742C007645C4?OpenDocument

2373:

The possible actions for taking measures are not discussed and only evaquation is mentioned, which is impossible in large cities and megacities.

1250:

In 2012 Roger Musson also discussed the VAN project in "The Million Death Quake: The Science of Predicting Earth's Deadliest Natural Disaster".

732:

You have not provided any specifics, nor pointed to any particular sections. From your two preceding edits it might be inferred you think that

1392:. Also, your additional removal of the terminal punctuation from all of the {citation} templates corrupts the citations, and thereby violates 630:

Bullshit. "Every time period" can also be seen as centuries, or fractions there of; so what? The normal and ordinary usage here is an implied

2560: 2542: 2320: 1022: 238: 233: 2368:

There is a court decision on the case of Laquila EQ against scientists who publicly stated (predicted?) that the earthquake would not occur.

265: 226: 221: 216: 209: 204: 199: 192: 187: 182: 84: 63: 92: 69: 2164:

The above contains the exact excerpt from the encyclopedia. I feel should be reproduced in the article, as it answers an open question.--

940: 1056: 1172: 961:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160304055905/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/nepec/meetings/10Nov_Pasadena/Jordan-Jones_SRL-81-4.pdf

2040:"of magnitude larger than 2.8 within all of Greece up to seven hours beforehand" ( from the Section "VAN seismic electric signals" ) 1090:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

836:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1598:

5. The source cited here is Geller, not Cosmos. We are not required to second-guess why Geller trusts that Cosmos is a true report.

1734:" is factually incorrect, and even asinine. Describing it as fringe is utter BULLSHIT. But we can hardly expect any better from a 1231:

1990s among seismologists about whether earthquakes could be predicted - deserved a more detailed exposition". The simple phrase "

826: 816: 992: 978: 696:

In southern California about 6% of M≥3.0 earthquakes are "followed by an earthquake of larger magnitude within 5 days and 10 km."

2606: 1080: 108:, and related subjects on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 2483:

There exist a multitude of authors dealing with earthquake prediction, from a variety of universities and research institutes.

1008: 964: 44: 2486:

The focus here is on the "where any small earthquake has some probability of cascading into a large event" argument, not EM.

594:. Which, by their nature, can give warning only on the order of seconds, not minutes, hours, or days. Furthermore, they can 2155:

The following source's content is suggested to be added to the third paragraph of the section: "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)":

1524: 1535:), whose edits either promote VAN, or remove content critical of VAN, distinctly demonstrating non-neutral violation of 1208:

But much work remains before gravity signals can be considered a reliable tool in the crucial minutes after a big quake.

1155: 901: 475: 301:

However, these theories and their implication that earthquake prediction is intrinsically impossible have been disputed.

2117:

The following addition is suggested to be added to the fourth paragraph of the section "VAN seismic electric signals":

1658: 586:

At this point in the text "earthquake prediction" has just been distinguished from earthquake forecasting. It is then

1960:

A community consensus has been achieved back in 2017, indeed. The discussion can start from this point and beyond.

1799:

JJ is right in pointing out that you have only edited on VAN topics here on Knowledge (XXG), suggesting that is your

1352:

I restored the version that updates the literature. Please be specific on justifying your changes, point by point.--

2512:, it's been a few days since my reply. I would appreciate if you can find some time to study the above. Regards, 2276:

by Daniel Helman (2020), which contains an analysis and critique of the VAN method. To quote from the conclusions:

1884:(with no further explanation than a link to a comment of yours here a month ago), and also your edits yesterday to 711:

do you have a problem? Is the use of "M" instead of "magnitude" not simple enough? Or (heaven forbid!) do you want

430: 2187:

A rebuttal to this complaint, which insisted on the accuracy of this prediction, was published on the same issue.

591: 570: 286:

it does not make clear to an uninitiated reader *why* predicting earthquakes is thought by some to be impossible.

1389: 1111:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

857:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

752:; they are comprehensible to many whose only expertise comes from reading a newspaper. As Dawnseeker has said: " 250: 2324: 999:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130427234807/http://www.gps.caltech.edu/uploads/File/People/kanamori/HKjgr78.pdf

50: 1176: 1146: 928: 892: 808: 667:. For all that you might disagree with Wang et al.'s sense of tense I thnk we should stick with the source. 2398: 2273: 1878: 1707:

sourced, showing that your basis for deletion is not really lack of sourcing, but content critical of VAN.

1023:

http://mtnet.dias.ie/working_group/papers/EMWKSHP_ReviewVolumes/1994Brest/Park_1994BrestReview_SG_1996.pdf

924: 804: 528: 381: 349: 1762: 1377: 1332: 1304:

work by or regarding VAN you think should be considered by all means please bring it to our attention. ♦

1292: 2588: 2489: 2442: 1130:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1118: 920: 876:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

864: 800: 554:

be defined differently. But the lede of this article is not the place to thrash out that kind of detail.

482:" That is where you made a number of questionable edits. (Which I explained to you, and then reverted.) 457: 426: 281: 927:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 807:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2016:"assist" the article. And very amatuerish. That is the kind of material that should not be allowed. ♦ 1002: 941:

http://develop.oes.ca.gov/WebPage/oeswebsite.nsf/Content/899D66837A2B126C8825742C007645C4?OpenDocument

2285: 2260: 2222: 2021: 1980: 1936: 1865: 1850: 1808: 1771: 1747: 1685: 1666: 1626: 1495: 1418: 1343: 1309: 1260: 1215: 782: 715:? We could hyper-link those, but judging by some of your other edits you are death on "over-linking". 367: 334: 1923:

For all of these reasons I am going rollback your recent edits. I strongly suggest that if have any

1739: 1393: 1057:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130603121040/http://staff.aist.go.jp/y.murakami/smart/pdf/91550207.pdf

702:

In central Italy 9.5% of M≥3.0 earthquakes are followed by a larger event within 48 hours and 30 km.

21: 954: 442: 2581:

as my course project. Would you like to make the earthquake cycle term redirect to this new page?

1328: 1276: 1068: 1044: 1030: 986: 972: 948: 256: 1115:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

861:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

657:

Fix? The original version is a close paraphrase of the source (in Wang et al., 2006, p. 787): "

1845:

issues with the content are best addressed by tagging them, not with large unilateral edits. ♦

1638: 1453:- the 2013 Tectonophysics paper and the 2020 Applied Sciences paper consitute literature update 1206:" is little more than "has been", with various caveats. As Susan Hough said back in November: " 1131: 877: 827:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140429161211/http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharjordan2008gji.pdf

817:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131002130801/http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zechar_dissertation.pdf

725:

Added {{Confusing|reason=the article is replete with jargon comprehensible only to an expert}}

2470: 2308: 2202: 2169: 2141: 2103: 2057: 1951: 1789: 1646: 1479: 1388:

justify your edits. Your subsequent restoration of your edits, without discussion, amounts to

1357: 1240: 406: 377: 345: 1536: 1373: 1324: 1074: 2584: 2578: 2514: 2495: 2424: 2403: 2381: 2342: 2312: 2289: 2235: 2226: 2000: 1962: 1081:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140429161347/http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharetal2010cc.pdf

1060: 252: 165: 2338: 1912: 1905: 1735: 1528: 1507: 1470: 1138: 1009:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130602192133/http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=4751

965:

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/aboutus/nepec/meetings/10Nov_Pasadena/Jordan-Jones_SRL-81-4.pdf

884: 376:

Thank you also, JJ, for restoring the sources. The article is looking better all the time.

299:", makes reference to two theories without explaining what they mean, and then concludes: " 2459:

The possibility of EM perturbations accompanying major earthquakes is mentioned elsewhere.

2296: 2281: 2256: 2218: 2048: 2017: 1976: 1932: 1861: 1846: 1804: 1767: 1743: 1681: 1662: 1622: 1491: 1414: 1339: 1305: 1256: 1235:" included in the VAN section of the article is not justified and thus is to be removed.-- 1211: 778: 363: 344:

I endorse this proposal, and have brought back the section from Aug. 2014 (more or less).

330: 105: 2067:

Literature update ( section "VAN seismic electric signals" or "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" )

1607:

seismic data may play an amazing role in short term precursor when combined with SES data

1514:

edit-warring to keep repeating questioned edits. The determination that VAN is fringe is

1050: 326:

version it is not even mentioned, showing the glaring inadequacy of the present version.

1233:

Most seismologists consider VAN to have been "resoundingly debunked" (Hough 2010b p=195)

1721:, there is anything more than a vanishingly small mention of "natural time domain", or 1097:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1036: 843:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 830: 820: 2365:

It should be stated that it is the state's responsibility to warn, not the scientists.

1725:

indication that anyone is using VAN "seismic electric signals" to predict earthquakes.

1657:

people can judge that for themselves. As to more recent criticism, I just came across

1137:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1104: 883:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

850: 2600: 1732:

the limited circle of VAN critics comprising almost exclusively Geller and co-authors

2577:

Hello, this is Xiaohan Song a student from Stanford who created a wiki page for the

2361:

A section for politics regarding earthquake prediction is missing from the article.

2012:

Some thing where I might agree with you, but more declaratively: that material does

1331:

view rejected by mainstream science ("debunked", even), these edits also constitute

1295:", and I am considering whether all of your edits ought to be removed on that basis. 1084: 2509: 2466: 2304: 2198: 2165: 2137: 2099: 2053: 2043:"but also a false alarm rate of 89%" ( from the Section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" ) 1947: 1785: 1642: 1475: 1353: 1236: 1012: 684: 402: 280:

We have left hanging an issue raised by Elriana (above, 02:44, 15 Feb.) about the "

550:"either or", as there is more than one definition of "earthquake forecasting"; it 254: 2592: 2520: 2501: 2474: 2430: 2409: 2387: 2348: 2328: 2264: 2241: 2206: 2173: 2145: 2107: 2061: 2025: 2006: 1984: 1968: 1955: 1940: 1869: 1854: 1812: 1793: 1775: 1751: 1689: 1670: 1650: 1630: 1499: 1483: 1422: 1361: 1347: 1313: 1264: 1244: 1219: 1180: 1160: 906: 786: 449: 434: 410: 385: 371: 353: 338: 97: 1904:

Note that COI editing is strongly discouraged, and may result in a block. (See

672:

03:15 (→Evaluating earthquake predictions: Simplify for the non-expert, please)

2300: 2251: 1885: 1532: 1320: 1288: 1103:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 849:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 101: 2480:

The Martucci 2021 reference is a secondary source to Natural Time Analysis.

1445:

but also a false alarm rate of 89%" - such a claim has been never published

2183:

In the section "2008: Greece (VAN)" the following phrase should be added:

1874:

EyeCont: with your tagging yesterday of the two VAN related sections with

675:

03:16 (→Evaluating earthquake predictions: Doesn't make a lick o' sense.)

2541:

harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMartucciSparvoliBartocciBattiston2021 (

754:

The reader needs to be responsible for being aware of the fundamentals.

516:. Did you even check? Or do you just make up reasons as you go along? 1285:

must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.

480:

Just try to make it simple enough for a layperson to understand ....

2415: 1405:

As I said before: where you see problems in the article you should

1003:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/uploads/File/People/kanamori/HKjgr78.pdf

775:

the article is replete with jargon comprehensible only to an expert

720:

03:19 (Needs to be written in a way that everybody can understand.)

615:

01:09 (→top: Meaningless. Every time period is made up of seconds.)

1171:

arrives, but otherwise rather close. It's something like 1000 km.

288:" As I noted then, that section has been seriously hacked. In its 2537: 1281:

an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field

1782: 1576: 955:

http://www.protezionecivile.it/cms/attach/ex_sum_finale_eng1.pdf

268:

contains discussions pertinent to the old version (last revised

2113:

Literature update II ( section "VAN seismic electric signals" )

1900:), it seems necessary to remind you of what I said just above: 768:", let alone that the article is "replete" with such instances. 462:

Brain bender??? Graduate student theses? Are you saying that "

257: 159: 15: 2376:

Funding of precursor phenomena vs seismicity is also missing.

1821:

unfair personal attacks on the VAN workers & natural time

1335:. For these reasons I am going to revert your recent edits. 606:, and in the immediate area of the earthquake the quake has 2627:

Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles in Physical sciences

2559:

harvnb error: no target: CITEREFVarotsosSarlisSkordas2020 (

2197:

If no objection is expressed, I will update the article.--

2136:

If no objection is expressed, I will update the article.--

2098:

If no objection is expressed, I will update the article.--

1447:- there is no such number in the specific page of the book 1437:- neither 2.8 nor 2.6 have been published, as written and 1194:

earthquakes, that have not yet happened – with earthquake

1075:

http://www.upo.es/eps/troncoso/Citas/ESWA10/citaESWA-3.pdf

931:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

811:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

474:"? Where the hell are you coming from? Well, perhaps from 1380:. I have reverted your "Bold" edits per what we call the 1061:

http://staff.aist.go.jp/y.murakami/smart/pdf/91550207.pdf

2401:

acceptable? I think we should summarize this section.

1510:

to insist on adherence to WP policies and practices; it

1287:". Your "polishing" of the VAN claims (here and also at 2369: 1995: 1896: 1890: 1730:

Attributing "Criticism of VAN" as arising solely from "

1462: 1456: 1450: 1444: 1438: 1434: 304: 269: 1051:

http://194.177.194.200/Greek/Staff/GCH/pepilamia99.pdf

2555: 1605:

Your quote from the 2013 encyclopedia article, that "

297:

Earthquake prediction may be intrinsically impossible

2414:

I removed the paragraph cited with the above, More,

1613:"VAN" as been claiming an amazing role for SES data 1037:

http://194.177.194.200/Greek/Staff/GCH/ioangrl98.pdf

993:

ftp://minotaur.ess.ucla.edu/pub/kagan/save/kjvan.pdf

979:

ftp://minotaur.ess.ucla.edu/pub/kagan/save/parkf.pdf

831:

http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharjordan2008gji.pdf

821:

http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zechar_dissertation.pdf

521:

01:07 (→top: It is or it isn't. We shouldn't hedge )

96:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2617:

Knowledge (XXG) vital articles in Physical sciences

2255:and we should just have a summary in this article. 2047:I tagged the above two excerpts (as recommended by 1107:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 853:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 707:WTF? It seems pretty straight-forward to me. Where 680:Two edits that tagged the following sentences with 573:, which upon detection of an earthquake, provide a 2179:Missing rebuttal ( section "2008: Greece (VAN)" ) 2151:Work update ( section "1983–1995: Greece (VAN)" ) 1085:http://earth.usc.edu/~zechar/zecharetal2010cc.pdf 2642:High-importance WikiProject Earthquakes articles 1013:http://www.ajr.org/article_printable.asp?id=4751 2295:The above VAN criticism by Helman mentioned by 2250:I agree, let's discuss improvements to the the 1920:suggest that you are not acting in good-faith. 1680:As far as I can tell, it's just mumbo-jumbo. ♦ 1457:restore of non-consensus delete of Nov 16, 2017 472:simply read this and understand the main points 1713:they are used by mainstream seismologists. So 1093:This message was posted before February 2018. 839:This message was posted before February 2018. 476:Talk:Richter_magnitude_scale#Recent_copy-edits 310:In its previous incarnation this section came 2032:Corrections on VAN (tagged for verifiability) 8: 1661:. Otherwise I stand by my earlier comments. 2632:B-Class vital articles in Physical sciences 2301:https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/5/583/htm 2081:The above cited papers are the following: 1719:outside of a small group of VAN proponents 1166:Left out new method based on gravity waves 58: 1579:, whose peer-review has been questioned.) 919:I have just modified 7 external links on 799:I have just modified 2 external links on 2637:B-Class WikiProject Earthquakes articles 1998:I am not sure it assists the article. 1834:almost exclusively Geller and co-authors 1333:unwarranted promotion of a fringe theory 1293:unwarranted promotion of fringe theories 1202:, but at a remote location. Also, your " 2530: 500:strong earthquake to occur in a region. 118:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Earthquakes 60: 19: 2612:Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles 2456:The number of authors is not relevant. 2186: 2158: 2120: 2075: 1931:– that you discuss them here first. ♦ 1841:And as you have already been advised: 1833: 1829: 1820: 1731: 1606: 1520: 1284: 1280: 1207: 1203: 912:External links modified (January 2018) 774: 765: 753: 747: 737: 701: 695: 664: 658: 645: 620: 564: 526: 495: 479: 471: 463: 300: 296: 285: 276:"Difficulty or impossibility" proposal 1204:can now be detected via gravity waves 490:01:06 (Not italicized in the source.) 295:form it makes a bald assertion that " 7: 1828:Your view that the VAN critics are " 1738:editor (with a possible COI) who is 1226:Update on "mainstream claim" for VAN 90:This article is within the scope of 2556:Varotsos, Sarlis & Skordas 2020 1990:Earthquake memory in time and space 764:of anything, jargon or otherwise, " 49:It is of interest to the following 2436:Difficulty vs Impossibility Rehash 1198:, which is about events that have 665:no official short-term prediction" 625:to regions that might be affected. 602:regions, because such systems are 14: 1639:Talk at 22:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC) 1319:EyeCont: Your edits, here and at 923:. Please take a moment to review 803:. Please take a moment to review 2647:WikiProject Earthquakes articles 766:comprehensible only to an expert 748:comprehensible only to an expert 536:the probabilistic assessment of 164: 124:WikiProject Earthquakes articles 121:Template:WikiProject Earthquakes 83: 62: 29: 20: 2212:Comments on EyeCont's proposals 1544:Regarding your specific points: 1531:(editing only this article and 1430:Every edit has been justified. 652:no valid short term prediction. 581:regions that might be affected. 138:This article has been rated as 2622:B-Class level-5 vital articles 2418:should be replaced by the one 1382:WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle 1190:– which is about anticipating 1: 1870:01:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 1855:21:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC) 1813:12:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC) 1794:07:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC) 1783:https://www.rjgeller.com/).-- 1776:12:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC) 1369:And I will again revert them. 1186:You are confusing earthquake 464:the average interested person 450:23:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC) 435:03:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC) 112:and see a list of open tasks. 2349:06:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC) 2086:Bibcode:2013Tectp.589..116V, 1752:23:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 1690:23:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 1671:13:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 1651:12:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 1631:01:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 1500:17:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 1484:14:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 1423:22:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 1362:10:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 1348:23:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 1314:22:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 1265:18:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 1245:13:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 1220:20:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC) 1181:06:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC) 1161:22:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC) 907:02:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC) 787:22:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC) 760:.) Even so, you have shown 1994:While it is useful to know 1327:. As the "VAN method" is a 758:some competence is required 282:Difficulty or impossibility 2663: 2593:23:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC) 2388:15:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC) 2290:09:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC) 2265:14:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC) 2242:13:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC) 2227:08:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC) 2207:10:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 2174:10:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 2146:09:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 2108:08:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 2062:08:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 2026:21:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 2007:20:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC) 1985:22:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC) 1969:09:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC) 1956:12:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC) 1413:examined and discussed. ♦ 1124:(last update: 5 June 2024) 916:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 870:(last update: 5 June 2024) 796:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 592:earthquake warning systems 571:earthquake warning systems 411:19:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 386:21:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC) 372:17:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC) 354:23:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC) 339:21:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC) 272:) prior to restructuring. 144:project's importance scale 2521:17:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC) 2502:17:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC) 2431:00:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC) 2410:20:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC) 2329:01:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC) 2299:has been recently shown ( 2211: 1941:00:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC) 690:("clarification needed"): 305:this verision (Aug. 2014) 137: 78: 57: 2475:22:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC) 2313:05:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC) 2303:) that does not stand.-- 1742:for the encyclopedia. ♦ 1575:journal is published by 1384:(WP:BRD); it is now for 738:everybody can understand 2090:doi:10.3390/app10020662 792:External links modified 773:prepared to show that " 93:WikiProject Earthquakes 2607:B-Class vital articles 1698:EyeCont: you have not 1609:", is rather amazing. 1469:J. Johnson acts under 577:warning of seconds to 529:earthquake forecasting 2490:Natural time analysis 2443:natural time analysis 1529:single-purpose editor 1521:resoundingly debunked 921:Earthquake prediction 801:Earthquake prediction 588:further distinguished 43:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 36:level-5 vital article 2538:Martucci et al. 2021 1830:mainly Geller et al. 1527:show that you are a 1105:regular verification 851:regular verification 2416:this arxiv citation 2272:I just came across 1927:edits – or better, 1291:) thus amounts to " 1095:After February 2018 841:After February 2018 569:distinguished from 546:Again false. It is 478:, where you said: " 1621:not come about. ♦ 1525:your contributions 1409:them, so they can 1283:", and therefore " 1149:InternetArchiveBot 1100:InternetArchiveBot 895:InternetArchiveBot 846:InternetArchiveBot 640:01:09 (Fix tense.) 621:provide a warning 565:Prediction can be 559:01:08 (Copy edit.) 45:content assessment 2519: 2500: 2429: 2420:finally published 2408: 2386: 2347: 2240: 2005: 1967: 1125: 871: 540:earthquake hazard 534:can be defined as 284:" section, that " 263: 262: 244: 243: 158: 157: 154: 153: 150: 149: 2654: 2579:earthquake cycle 2565: 2564: 2553: 2547: 2546: 2535: 2517: 2513: 2498: 2494: 2427: 2423: 2406: 2402: 2393:Machine Learning 2384: 2380: 2345: 2341: 2238: 2234: 2003: 1999: 1965: 1961: 1899: 1893: 1883: 1877: 1252:On pages 171-174 1200:already happened 1159: 1150: 1123: 1122: 1101: 1072: 1048: 1034: 990: 976: 952: 905: 896: 869: 868: 847: 689: 683: 608:already happened 461: 458:BeenAroundAWhile 447: 427:BeenAroundAWhile 258: 179: 178: 168: 160: 126: 125: 122: 119: 116: 87: 80: 79: 74: 66: 59: 42: 33: 32: 25: 24: 16: 2662: 2661: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2597: 2596: 2575: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2515: 2496: 2438: 2425: 2404: 2395: 2382: 2359: 2343: 2321:119.252.119.106 2236: 2214: 2181: 2153: 2115: 2069: 2034: 2018:J. Johnson (JJ) 2001: 1992: 1977:J. Johnson (JJ) 1963: 1933:J. Johnson (JJ) 1895: 1889: 1881: 1875: 1862:J. Johnson (JJ) 1847:J. Johnson (JJ) 1761:That's not how 1744:J. Johnson (JJ) 1682:J. Johnson (JJ) 1623:J. Johnson (JJ) 1573:Applied Science 1415:J. Johnson (JJ) 1390:WP:Edit warring 1340:J. Johnson (JJ) 1306:J. Johnson (JJ) 1228: 1212:J. Johnson (JJ) 1168: 1153: 1148: 1116: 1109:have permission 1099: 1066: 1042: 1028: 984: 970: 946: 929:this simple FaQ 914: 899: 894: 862: 855:have permission 845: 809:this simple FaQ 794: 779:J. Johnson (JJ) 687: 681: 632:on the order of 455: 443: 423: 364:J. Johnson (JJ) 331:J. Johnson (JJ) 278: 259: 253: 173: 140:High-importance 123: 120: 117: 114: 113: 106:plate tectonics 73:High‑importance 72: 40: 30: 12: 11: 5: 2660: 2658: 2650: 2649: 2644: 2639: 2634: 2629: 2624: 2619: 2614: 2609: 2599: 2598: 2574: 2571: 2567: 2566: 2548: 2529: 2528: 2524: 2507: 2505: 2504: 2487: 2484: 2481: 2464: 2463: 2460: 2457: 2454: 2437: 2434: 2394: 2391: 2378: 2377: 2374: 2371: 2366: 2358: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2332: 2331: 2293: 2292: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2245: 2244: 2213: 2210: 2195: 2194: 2180: 2177: 2152: 2149: 2134: 2133: 2129: 2114: 2111: 2096: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2068: 2065: 2045: 2044: 2041: 2033: 2030: 2029: 2028: 1991: 1988: 1972: 1858: 1857: 1838: 1837: 1825: 1824: 1816: 1815: 1779: 1778: 1755: 1754: 1727: 1726: 1709: 1708: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1674: 1673: 1634: 1633: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1546: 1545: 1541: 1540: 1503: 1502: 1467: 1466: 1460: 1454: 1448: 1442: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1370: 1317: 1316: 1297: 1296: 1268: 1267: 1227: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1167: 1164: 1143: 1142: 1135: 1088: 1087: 1079:Added archive 1077: 1063: 1055:Added archive 1053: 1039: 1025: 1017:Added archive 1015: 1007:Added archive 1005: 997:Added archive 995: 981: 967: 959:Added archive 957: 943: 935:Added archive 913: 910: 889: 888: 881: 834: 833: 825:Added archive 823: 815:Added archive 793: 790: 770: 769: 722: 721: 717: 716: 692: 691: 677: 676: 673: 669: 668: 642: 641: 637: 636: 617: 616: 612: 611: 561: 560: 556: 555: 523: 522: 518: 517: 506:Flat out false 492: 491: 453: 452: 445:Dawnseeker2000 422: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 401:modifications. 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 388: 357: 356: 277: 274: 261: 260: 255: 251: 249: 246: 245: 242: 241: 236: 230: 229: 224: 219: 213: 212: 207: 202: 196: 195: 190: 185: 175: 174: 169: 163: 156: 155: 152: 151: 148: 147: 136: 130: 129: 127: 110:the discussion 88: 76: 75: 67: 55: 54: 48: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2659: 2648: 2645: 2643: 2640: 2638: 2635: 2633: 2630: 2628: 2625: 2623: 2620: 2618: 2615: 2613: 2610: 2608: 2605: 2604: 2602: 2595: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2580: 2572: 2562: 2557: 2552: 2549: 2544: 2539: 2534: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2522: 2518: 2511: 2503: 2499: 2491: 2488: 2485: 2482: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2461: 2458: 2455: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2446: 2444: 2435: 2433: 2432: 2428: 2421: 2417: 2412: 2411: 2407: 2400: 2399:this citation 2392: 2390: 2389: 2385: 2375: 2372: 2370: 2367: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2356: 2350: 2346: 2340: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2275: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2253: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2243: 2239: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2209: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2184: 2178: 2176: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2162: 2161: 2156: 2150: 2148: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2130: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2118: 2112: 2110: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2079: 2078: 2073: 2066: 2064: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2050: 2042: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2004: 1997: 1989: 1987: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1971: 1970: 1966: 1958: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1943: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1921: 1917: 1914: 1909: 1907: 1903: 1898: 1892: 1887: 1880: 1879:verifiability 1872: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1817: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1784: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1764: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1711: 1710: 1706: 1701: 1697: 1696: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1603: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1543: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1504: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1472: 1465: 1461: 1458: 1455: 1452: 1449: 1446: 1443: 1441:by J. Johnson 1440: 1436: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1350: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1336: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1273: 1270: 1269: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1253: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1165: 1163: 1162: 1157: 1152: 1151: 1140: 1136: 1133: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1120: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1096: 1091: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1076: 1070: 1064: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1052: 1046: 1040: 1038: 1032: 1026: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1004: 1000: 996: 994: 988: 982: 980: 974: 968: 966: 962: 958: 956: 950: 944: 942: 938: 934: 933: 932: 930: 926: 922: 917: 911: 909: 908: 903: 898: 897: 886: 882: 879: 875: 874: 873: 866: 860: 856: 852: 848: 842: 837: 832: 828: 824: 822: 818: 814: 813: 812: 810: 806: 802: 797: 791: 789: 788: 784: 780: 776: 767: 763: 759: 755: 751: 749: 743: 739: 735: 731: 728: 727: 726: 719: 718: 714: 710: 706: 705: 704: 703: 698: 697: 686: 679: 678: 674: 671: 670: 666: 663: 662: 656: 655: 654: 653: 651: 648: 639: 638: 633: 629: 628: 627: 626: 624: 614: 613: 609: 605: 601: 597: 593: 589: 585: 584: 583: 582: 580: 576: 572: 568: 558: 557: 553: 549: 545: 544: 543: 541: 539: 535: 531: 530: 520: 519: 515: 514:in the source 511: 507: 504: 503: 502: 501: 499: 489: 488: 487: 483: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 459: 451: 448: 446: 439: 438: 437: 436: 432: 428: 420: 412: 408: 404: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 387: 383: 379: 375: 374: 373: 369: 365: 361: 360: 359: 358: 355: 351: 347: 343: 342: 341: 340: 336: 332: 327: 325: 322: 318: 313: 308: 306: 302: 298: 294: 291: 287: 283: 275: 273: 271: 267: 248: 247: 240: 237: 235: 232: 231: 228: 225: 223: 220: 218: 215: 214: 211: 208: 206: 203: 201: 198: 197: 194: 191: 189: 186: 184: 181: 180: 177: 176: 172: 167: 162: 161: 145: 141: 135: 132: 131: 128: 111: 107: 103: 99: 95: 94: 89: 86: 82: 81: 77: 71: 68: 65: 61: 56: 52: 46: 38: 37: 27: 23: 18: 17: 2583: 2576: 2551: 2533: 2525: 2506: 2465: 2447: 2439: 2413: 2396: 2379: 2360: 2294: 2271: 2215: 2196: 2185: 2182: 2163: 2157: 2154: 2135: 2119: 2116: 2097: 2080: 2074: 2070: 2046: 2035: 2013: 1993: 1973: 1959: 1944: 1928: 1924: 1922: 1918: 1910: 1901: 1873: 1859: 1842: 1800: 1780: 1763:WP:CONSENSUS 1756: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1704: 1699: 1635: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1572: 1515: 1511: 1508:WP:OWNership 1468: 1429: 1410: 1406: 1385: 1378:WP:PROFRINGE 1351: 1337: 1318: 1301: 1300:If there is 1279:; that is, " 1271: 1232: 1229: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1173:97.104.70.92 1169: 1147: 1144: 1119:source check 1098: 1092: 1089: 918: 915: 893: 890: 865:source check 844: 838: 835: 798: 795: 771: 762:no instances 761: 757: 745: 741: 733: 730:What jargon? 729: 723: 713:more details 712: 708: 699: 693: 660: 649: 646: 643: 635:the meaning. 631: 622: 618: 607: 603: 599: 595: 587: 578: 574: 566: 562: 551: 547: 537: 533: 527: 524: 513: 509: 505: 497: 493: 484: 467: 454: 444: 424: 421:Brain bender 378:JerryRussell 346:JerryRussell 328: 323: 320: 316: 311: 309: 292: 289: 279: 270:20 June 2012 264: 170: 139: 91: 51:WikiProjects 34: 2585:Xiaohansong 2573:Redirection 2516:ManosHacker 2497:ManosHacker 2426:ManosHacker 2405:ManosHacker 2383:ManosHacker 2344:ManosHacker 2237:ManosHacker 2002:ManosHacker 1964:ManosHacker 1929:suggestions 1911:Also, as a 1617:. That has 1451:2020 update 1439:"corrected" 746:in no way " 600:neighboring 579:neighboring 512:italicized 115:Earthquakes 98:earthquakes 70:Earthquakes 2601:Categories 2526:References 2297:Mikenorton 2282:Mikenorton 2257:Mikenorton 2252:VAN method 2219:Mikenorton 2193:2324-9250. 2052:deleted.-- 2049:Mikenorton 1886:VAN method 1805:Mikenorton 1768:Mikenorton 1663:Mikenorton 1611:Since 1981 1533:VAN method 1492:Mikenorton 1394:WP:CITEVAR 1321:VAN method 1289:VAN method 1272:Seismology 1257:Mikenorton 1188:prediction 1156:Report bug 902:Report bug 756:" (I say: 744:, and are 742:not jargon 623:of seconds 266:/Archive 1 239:Archive 11 234:Archive 10 102:seismology 2094:1951-6401 2077:analysis. 1925:bona fide 1717:: where, 1506:It's not 1277:WP:FRINGE 1139:this tool 1132:this tool 1069:dead link 1045:dead link 1031:dead link 987:dead link 973:dead link 949:dead link 885:this tool 878:this tool 709:precisely 604:real-time 575:real-time 508:. "next" 227:Archive 9 222:Archive 8 217:Archive 7 210:Archive 6 205:Archive 5 200:Archive 4 193:Archive 3 188:Archive 2 183:Archive 1 39:is rated 2357:Politics 2132:14524749 2128:12636655 2122:sources. 1740:not here 1464:news..." 1145:Cheers.— 891:Cheers.— 650:had been 532:, which 171:Archives 2510:Elriana 2467:Elriana 2305:EyeCont 2199:EyeCont 2166:EyeCont 2138:EyeCont 2100:EyeCont 2054:EyeCont 1948:EyeCont 1843:alleged 1832:" and " 1819:These " 1786:EyeCont 1715:show us 1643:EyeCont 1562:source. 1537:WP:NPOV 1476:EyeCont 1374:WP:NPOV 1354:EyeCont 1325:WP:NPOV 1237:EyeCont 1196:warning 1073:tag to 1049:tag to 1035:tag to 991:tag to 977:tag to 953:tag to 925:my edit 805:my edit 567:further 538:general 403:Elriana 321:current 290:current 142:on the 41:B-class 2339:WP:COI 1913:WP:SPA 1906:WP:COI 1736:WP:SPA 1471:WP:OWN 1329:fringe 1302:recent 1192:future 1065:Added 1041:Added 1027:Added 983:Added 969:Added 945:Added 659:there 466:" can 324:recent 293:recent 47:scale. 2508:Dear 1700:asked 1619:still 1615:alone 1589:here. 1552:that. 1516:based 777:". ~ 724:: --> 700:: --> 694:: --> 644:: --> 619:: --> 598:warn 590:from 563:: --> 525:: --> 494:: --> 312:after 28:This 2589:talk 2561:help 2543:help 2471:talk 2445:." 2422:. 2325:talk 2309:talk 2286:talk 2261:talk 2223:talk 2203:talk 2170:talk 2142:talk 2104:talk 2058:talk 2022:talk 1981:talk 1952:talk 1937:talk 1897:here 1894:and 1891:here 1866:talk 1851:talk 1809:talk 1801:only 1790:talk 1772:talk 1748:talk 1686:talk 1667:talk 1659:this 1647:talk 1627:talk 1577:MDPI 1496:talk 1480:talk 1419:talk 1376:and 1358:talk 1344:talk 1310:talk 1261:talk 1241:talk 1216:talk 1210:" ~ 1177:talk 783:talk 596:only 498:next 496:the 431:talk 407:talk 382:talk 368:talk 350:talk 335:talk 134:High 2397:Is 2014:not 1908:.) 1723:any 1407:tag 1386:you 1113:RfC 1083:to 1059:to 1021:to 1011:to 1001:to 963:to 939:to 859:RfC 829:to 819:to 734:not 685:huh 661:was 647:was 552:can 548:not 468:not 317:why 2603:: 2591:) 2473:) 2327:) 2311:) 2288:) 2263:) 2225:) 2205:) 2172:) 2144:) 2106:) 2060:) 2024:) 1996:it 1983:) 1975:♦ 1954:) 1939:) 1882:}} 1876:{{ 1868:) 1853:) 1811:) 1792:) 1774:) 1750:) 1705:is 1688:) 1669:) 1649:) 1629:) 1519:(" 1512:is 1498:) 1482:) 1421:) 1411:be 1360:) 1346:) 1312:) 1263:) 1243:) 1218:) 1179:) 1126:. 1121:}} 1117:{{ 1071:}} 1067:{{ 1047:}} 1043:{{ 1033:}} 1029:{{ 989:}} 985:{{ 975:}} 971:{{ 951:}} 947:{{ 872:. 867:}} 863:{{ 785:) 688:}} 682:{{ 542:. 510:is 433:) 409:) 384:) 370:) 352:) 337:) 307:. 104:, 100:, 2587:( 2563:) 2545:) 2469:( 2323:( 2307:( 2284:( 2259:( 2221:( 2201:( 2168:( 2140:( 2102:( 2056:( 2020:( 1979:( 1950:( 1935:( 1888:( 1864:( 1849:( 1807:( 1788:( 1770:( 1746:( 1684:( 1665:( 1645:( 1625:( 1539:. 1494:( 1478:( 1417:( 1396:. 1356:( 1342:( 1308:( 1259:( 1239:( 1214:( 1175:( 1158:) 1154:( 1141:. 1134:. 904:) 900:( 887:. 880:. 781:( 750:" 736:" 610:. 470:" 460:: 456:@ 429:( 405:( 380:( 366:( 348:( 333:( 146:. 53::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index