User talk:Shyncat

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome!

Hello, Shyncat, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Shyncat (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

other Cheyenne, they looked more like the Utes to their Cheyenne kin, also meaning ″Mountain Men″)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Employment levels

While the LADWP Web site refers to 3900, I think the historical record should defer to the carefully put together annual reports submitted to city leaders at the time of construction. The 7th annual report was submitted to the city in 1912 stating 3800 workers. Dcoffida (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too believe that the historical documents available need to be our main source and this is why I made the change as I did. Although I'm not sure of which 7th Annual Report your speaking of (Bureau of the Los Angeles Aqueduct or Board of Public Service Commissioners) the 3900 number is cited as "the maximum number of men employed at one time, during the building of the Aqueduct,..." in the Complete Report on Construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, pages 270 & 271. I will check through other resources and see if there are others that corroborate one or the other figure. Thank you, Shyncat (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Please do not use inaccurate edit summaries

On William Mulholland you added a "who" tag using the edit summary "grammar and punctuation". That edit summary does not accurately represent the edit made. Please be certain that the edit summary you provide accurately represents the edit you make. Thanks, BMK (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I forgot to add the -who tag- to the summary and for that I'm sorry but, the punctuation is correct. I don't know what I was thinking and I'll make sure the summary is correct next time. Thank you Shyncat (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Santa Barbara earthquake

Hi, and thanks for your help on that article. I have often considered which magnitude scale to use, and it often comes down to sources, but I've also realized that for those shocks that occurred in the prime of Richter's era (when he was working at Caltech just prior to developing the scale) it makes sense to use that scale. In this case, we have that excellent Stover & Coffman source (a highly-reliable earthquake catalog from seismologists) that lists a moment magnitude for that event. Thanks again, Dawnseeker2000 17:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you but, I think here were taking about accuracy and for that the Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), which operates at the Seismological Laboratory at Caltech and is the primary archive of seismological data for southern California, is a better and more up to date source. The source cited has a printing date of 1993, and the SCEDC information was last updated 01/31/2013. Shyncat (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better? By what standard? More up to date? Who determined that a more recent publication is better? I suggest leaving it as it is. It's fine. Dawnseeker2000 18:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a far more reliable source because the Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC) operates at the Seismological Laboratory at Caltech and the Caltech/USGS catalog, which is maintained by the SCEDC, is the most complete archive of seismic data. They have taken all of the known earthquake data from 1932-present and rechecked the older parametric data and because the data is converted to the modern format the analysts can work with the same data as the scientists. This means the results are of higher accuracy with no translation errors. This is why we find that over time, in a number of cases, the magnitude or location of a past quake has changed. This is what we have here. The SCEDC is far more than two seismologists who cataloged, though sources with information valid as of 1993. Thank you Shyncat (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're mistaken. To say one source is far more reliable over another is just not correct. How many different magnitudes do you think have been presented for this shock? More than a few I'd say. Please do not change it as all items in the encyclopedia that discuss the magnitude for this earthquake are in agreement (with several independent sources included). That's the best that we can do in situations like these. Dawnseeker2000 17:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and sorry, but unless you make a convincing or correct argument, the article should stay as it is. The changes you've made reflect one organizations view on the event. There are many views, and the figure that's in the article (and others, with a separate, independent source) is fine. You can't argue that it's better; you just can't. See WP:STATUSQUO, Dawnseeker2000 17:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it is a reliable source, the USGS and Caltech think it is and the best is what should be used. If you want, ask for a second opinion as to what is best and we'll see. Shyncat (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to discuss this with you any longer because I don't think you understand the nature of the discussion. You keep saying "best" and that does not apply to these things. There are many magnitudes presented for damaging earthquakes. Sorry dude, you haven't got a good argument. Dawnseeker2000 19:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Reference Errors on 29 September

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

On the 1925 Santa Barbara earthquake page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done