User talk:Volcanoguy/Archive 4

Pix of Tonga eruption...

By now you've probably seen lots; this is a gallery page on http://english.pravda.ru which is the English language version of Pravda; I'd looked it up tonight to read up on the Russian views on the financial crisis; always lots of crazy stuff in Pravda but generally also some very cool pictures of this'n'that; this is from their Science section:

http://english.pravda.ru/photo/report/volcano-4305

Click "next photo" for the rest of the gallery; some really cool pics.Skookum1 (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm....never seen that site or pics before. Now you must have an idea what kind of eruptions Bowie Seamount had during the last ice age ;-). Seeing something like that on the BC Coast would be amazing. Mount Redoubt in Alaska recently erupted as well. Black Tusk (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW I found Holland's book mentioning Tseax, Hoodoo and other volcanics. Black Tusk (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow!

Nice job! (blew me away) BTW, Loihi Seamount's on a GA nom. ResMar 21:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you already seen that. I will help out with Loihi. Black Tusk (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Loihi's a colse collab with my good friend Viriditas. Well, I'm also looking to nominate Hawaii hotspot for a GA while Loihi sits in the backlog. I'm very bad at gauging article quality, but I think I did a pretty darned good job. Do you think it's ready? Sorry to hinge on you, but the last time I didn't ask for a second opinion, it fell apart. ResMar 16:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I did see it before, I was just too busy to respond at the moment :(

Barnstar!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For that MASSIVE 80+ K edit to Volcanism in Canada. Doesn't it just suck that your buddies don't give barnstars much? Did I metion your talkpage is a bit of a forum for Geology-related WikiProjects? You go dude!ResMar 16:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Right. Well, yes it does suck nobody does not give barnstars much. I have created and reformed hundreds of volcanology articles and I rarely get anything. But that is probably because lots of Canadians are idiots and do not know anything about volcanism in Canada unless I teach them a lesson, like here at my talkpage forum. In fact, most people are not even aware there is volcanism in Canada. What they are waiting for is to get killed or hit in the head with with a bolder. They should have learned some of that stuff at school like everything else ;-). As for the Hawaii hotspot, it looks good and I will probably help with that as well since I made that page. Black Tusk (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ohh, burned. Good thing I'm not Canadian...netherless, thanks for the encouragment. I've noticed that too, that it's FAR harder to get awarded in the Science section of Wikipedia. For example, look at Vantine84 of WP:VIDEOGAMES. He's been on about ~1 1/2 months, and already gotton 4 barnstars for somewhat minor things, like copyediting Machinima and adding 1k to the 23k article Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (video game). It kind of pissed me off, too. He's been here far shorter then I have, but already has more barnstars... ResMar 17:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What can I say, I respect you. You're one of the biggest and most prominent contributors in the Geology area, such that you're on my shortlist of people to bug for stuff :) ResMar 18:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? Never knew someone respected me. With that being said, I am now unsure I will leave Wikipedia; having trouble with Wikipedia these days. I will probably start editing Loihi Seamount and Hawaii hotspot once those articles are reviewed for GA status like here. Anyway, I am currently collecting infomation for Hoodoo Mountain so there will be another one of my major expansions. Has a long history of subglacial eruptions. Black Tusk (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure, also see Ceranthor's comments. Great, now that I'm done burning through my backlong, I might be able to help you. DON'T LEAVE! ResMar 19:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added myself to your Hawaii Workgroup and formed a workgroup for Canadian volcanism. Black Tusk (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, that's big. The current record for an FT is 25... You should tone it down a bit, I think; you'de need 27 GAs and 9 FAs to pass it. I'll help you as best I can, but you're the expert here on this stuff. This type of a huge project will take years. Kind of like TomStar81, who wants an FT for ALL battleship article, an eventual goal. So far, he's gotton Yamota-class and Iowa-class to FAs/GAs. I recommend you break it up into more workable segments; for example, "Major Volcanoes of British Columbia." Once all of the articles meet the criteria, all of the segments can be merged into one comprehensive FA. ResMar 21:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

10 volcanoes don't have to be in the featured topic box. Black Tusk (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot better, but I still recomend you break it up into sections. Canada's a pretty big place! ResMar 22:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I will think about it. The most important volcanoes and volcanics are mostly in British Columbia anyway, which are all in the featured topic box. Black Tusk (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW RM, I am curious to know why color differences matter on mine and your workgroups. Not that it really matters. I mean, colors are just colors. Black Tusk (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, but light blue is my color. Or, in another respect, thinking of Hawaii brings up orange, red, and light blue (volcanoes and oceans), wheras Canada brings up Forest Green and Brown (forests and forest ground). ResMar 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian flag is red and white. Volcanoes arn't green or blue anyway. Black Tusk (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh whatever, it's unimportant. ResMar 22:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Viriditas just opened discussions with me on how exactly to approach the FA on my talk page. That's important, as he's in Hawaii, and rarely on at this time. ResMar 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Once all references are filled out on the Volcanism in Canada article I think we should nominate it for FA status. It seems complete IMO. Black Tusk (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comeplete enough? LOl yeah. ResMar 13:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Why non-geography sources are dubious

Re that on Talk:Western Cordillera (North America), really? I have some doubt with that claim Skookum1. All geology papers I seen relating to volcanology refer the Coast Mountains as the Coast Mountains, the Interior Plateau as the Interior Plateau and so on. Black Tusk (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hoodoo Mountain

Fantastic job! Sorry I haven't touched your stuff lately, I've been adding multiple k to Hawaii hotspot (every time I seem to finsih, there's more to add and I get right back into it...) But anyway, now that I have a bit of time (the calm between GA nom and review for Hawai hotspot and Loihi) I'll hit one of thems Canadian articles. Cheers, ResMar 00:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there is lots to add to the Hawaii hotspot article, probably never stop. That's one thing I don't like about Hawaiian volcanism. Canadian volcanology articles are easier to complete because of the lesser knowledge at Canadian volcanoes and Canadian volcano articles have lower levels of vandalism. Black Tusk (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's also so much harder to find resources for articles... ResMar 14:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That depends on what volcano article you are working on. See the Hoodoo Mountain volcanology paper here or the volcanology paper about the eruption that took place at Mount Meager 2,350 years ago here for example. Those two papers are excellent for those articles. They are already in their articles, but tons of infomation can still be added from those papers. Black Tusk (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Another Canadian volcano with lots of infomation is the Mount Edziza volcanic complex. Black Tusk (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'll get started tommorow on one (I hope...if I'm not sidetracked again); I've gotten into renovating my userpage, again. ResMar 22:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Now wait a moment, that one doesn't count, it's already GA. ResMar 23:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, we could go for an FA.... Black Tusk (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Now that I know you are starting the Blake River Megacaldera Complex, I will might as well collect infomation to remake Mount Meager. Black Tusk (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I also made images for Meager, Hoodoo, Silverthrone, Magic and Endeavour hydrothermal fields that I still have to upload on Commons. Black Tusk (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoah, slow down with the Emporer seamount thing! Can you add it to the Hawaii hotspot chart; the ages are with John Seach, the coords here. ResMar 22:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm slowly coming around to filling in the meat and bones of the Emporer seamounts. It's a bit of a chore though. ResMar 22:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL I have fingers! Sure, I will add the seamounts on the Hawaii hotspot article once I am done creating articles for the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain. Black Tusk (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, you're done. Seach doesn't mention any more em', I think. What I like about the Emporer seamounts is that they're reliable for DYKs; I plan to DYK all of 'em (well, except for the super-obscure ones). ResMar 22:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There is more seamounts not listed on John Search. Other seamounts of the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain include Goshirakawa Seamount, Gosanjo Seamount, Toba Guyot, Genji Seamount, Ninigi Seamount, Showa Guyot, etc. Black Tusk (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor; like the dozens of seamounts sorounding Hawaii, which were found to be unrelated to the hotspot itself. Just finished de-stubbing Nintoku Seamount. Now B-class! ResMar 23:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Those seamounts are within the chain like the others, not outside. The seamounts within the Hawaii volcanism template are spread throughout the chain and I am pretty sure the Hawaii hotspot has created more than 41 volcanoes throughout the past 82 million years. Black Tusk (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Where'd you get them? ResMar 00:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

So it has. It covers the major ones. The remainder don't have articles; new ones are being discovered annualy. As I understand, the 4 you added were unnamed and unstudied going into 2006. ResMar 00:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Some of the seamounts I listed above are not small. Thus they would not be minor seamounts. I found those seamounts on www.geonames.org. Black Tusk (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Such is the reason for "major volcanoes" and the disclaimer regarding incomepletness. I don't really want to overload the chart or the template; the materials I've seen mention the existance "of at least 140 volcanoes." Adding them all would cause the chart to span the lenght of the article itself. ResMar 13:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I've started filling out the info for the refs for Volcanism of Canada. ResMar 13:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Loihi as a member of Category:Hawaii (island)

I think this is one of those exceptions to the rule. In the literature, Loihi is discussed as part of the island of Hawaii, and is classified as such. That's why I added the category, and I think it fits. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. I do not agree anyway. Black Tusk (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be part of the island geographically in the future if it continues to erupt and breach sea level to join the island like the other volcanoes. Black Tusk (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Tusk, since you and I are working on Hawaii-related articles, I would like to have a good, working relationship with you. If you could talk a little more about your "disagreement", I might be able to address any outstanding issues, so we can meet somewhere in the middle. Would you have any objection if I added Loihi to Category:Volcanoes of the Island of Hawaii? Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think wether or not it is included depends on how clearly you draw the line. In a loose sense it is in full part a Hawaiian island volcano. In the strict sense, it is a developing Hawaiian volcano that is not yet connected to the island, and belongs in a caste of its own. I have to agree with Viriditas on this one; it is mentioned in most of the stuff I read as a Hawaiian island volcanoes. Both the NOAA and USGS treat it such. The one thing I hate about geology is that the "the fine line" dissecting things like exactly doesn't exist. But let's not make a major issue out of this. ResMar 13:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not give a damn period. An island is an area of land smaller than a continent that is completely surrounded by water. No such thing exists for Loihi. Black Tusk (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Tusk, please keep in mind that any discussion (or categorization) for volcanoes of the island of Hawaii will include Loihi, and when one looks at the literature on the subject, this is exactly what one finds. But to address both of you, there really is no "fine line" in any subject, whether it is geology or physics. After much study, you will learn that these things are mostly arbitrary for the sake of convenience. This can come as a shock to people who think we live in a world where categories actually exist. They are, for all intents and purposes, completely and totally artificial, and only exist in our minds. Viriditas (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Just add the category then. I am not arguing just over a category. The only thing I see Loihi being part of the island of Hawaii is the fact that it lies on the island's southern flank. Might as well add Māhukona in the category since that was the first volcano to form part of Hawaii. Black Tusk (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. ResMar 17:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Volcanism in Canada

Unfortunately I have some unfinished business including one article that is now in FAC. I am willing to help but a month or two later. Ruslik (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Volcanism of Canada

Sorry it took so long, but I'm finally off: [1]. ResMar 19:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, new Mount Pleasant Caldera maps. Black Tusk (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep :-) There's actually a decent amount of information about it. ResMar 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have started collecting infomation for Meager. Black Tusk (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, is Hoodoo on GA nom? That's enough for today for me; I'll finish Mount Pleasant geology tommorow and intergrate the text currently in the article before moving it into the namespace. ResMar 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess we could start a GA nom for Hoodoo. If I lived around the Mount Pleasant Caldera I would probably be able to take some pics of its lavas and pyroclastics. There is also some pillow lavas in my area some two billion years old that I still have to post on the Volcanism in Canada article. Black Tusk (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, live near it? ResMar 00:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I live in northeastern Ontario. Black Tusk (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to find something on the caldera's volcanic activity. Giving just a detailed list of the deposited layers is boring. ResMar 14:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the reason everthing seems to focus on the deposits is because there are nearby gold deposits, so while no one cares about its volcanic activity, they do care about what layer contains the gold :( Darned econimic geologists... ResMar 15:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's this about granite intrusions if you don't already have that linked in your sandbox. The Exocaldera, Intracaldera and Late Caldera-Fill series are products of volcanic activity. Black Tusk (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Another possible reason why you can't find anything about its volcanic activity is the fact it is an extinct volcano that will not erupt again. 15:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I found this. It looks good; if only it wasn't pay-per-view! :( True, but they should have something. ResMar 15:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That is the same thing I linked above per the title Stratigraphy and eruptive history of the Late Devonian Mount Pleasant Caldera Complex, Canadian Appalachians and its authors. Black Tusk (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the site I seen with the same title and authors is this one. I thought I gave you the link in one of my replies. Black Tusk (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

VIC

I'm willing to help with the prose, if you need it. Ceranllama chat post 16:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Well, more than 10 references still need to be filled out before it is nominated for FA status. I have been busy adding Volcanism in Western Canada, Volcanism in Northern Canada, and Volcanism in Eastern Canada to their volcanology articles. Feel free to join the Volcanism in Canada Workgroup. Black Tusk (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Random Wiki Smile!

Black Tusk, WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 04:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nintoku Seamount

On April 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nintoku Seamount, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

New volcano challenge

See my talk page. Someone threatened to CfD Category:Volcanoes of the Lake District and many of the parent categories we've been creating. - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I gave my advice. Black Tusk (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Precambian pics

Very nice! If only I could do something like that...I live a long way from any volcano. ResMar 23:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There will be more pics. Too bad I do not know where the vent(s) is located, otherwise I could find more areas covered with pillow lava. The area where I took those three pics (i.e. Image:Temagami greenstone belt pillow lava.jpg, Image:Temagami greenstone belt pillow lava2.jpg, Image:Temagami greenstone belt pillow lava3.jpg) is full of weathered pillow lava..... Black Tusk (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You go on random trips so you could add photos to wiki articles? Dedication, tut tut :) ResMar 22:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I am an explorer in my area. Whenever I go somewhere that needs photos on Wikipedia I bring a camera and take a picture it. Common sense. But this is just something I have been doing recently, not something I have been doing since I first became a user of Wikipedia to become a photographer. There is even a large abandoned mine in my area with at least four lake-filled pits still needing photos, but most of the mine buildings are now long gone for some dumbass reason. The mine area is even posted with "no trespassing" signs, but that does not stop me because no one is even in the area. It is so retarded to post such signs where people do not take care or even watch out for the place :@. Oh well, if I get caught trespassing anyway, I can always scramble down the mine's railroad tracks where there is no easy road access and easy to escape :). Black Tusk (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

CM template

Dude, it's gonna be WAY too big once it's complete; I'm thinking more workable would be three main separate ones (Boundary, Kitimat, Pacific) with subgroupings within them for the Lillooet/Cayoosh/Garibaldi/Douglas/Chilcotin subranges (in the case of teh Pacific Ranges). There are gonna be, most likely, a few hundred mountain entries alone, and for the parks it's in the several dozens....even as it is, things should be broken up by the three main groups (and note your "Boundary" and "Boundary" complication......the CM template should just be, I'd say, a directory of the subregion templates and only the most notable peaks, not all of them.Skookum1 (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not ment to be complete. And I have already thought of creating templates for the Boundary, Pacific, and Kitimat Ranges, which I have already started. Black Tusk (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You can do whatever you want with it Skookum1. I just created it because the Coast Mountains are a large mountain range. And another template like that one exists for the Canadian Rockies. Surely there is more than 27 mountains in that portion of the Rocky Mountains. There might be problems creating a template for the Kitimat Ranges right now because I am not aware of any articles related to that Coast Mountains subdivision, except for mountain range articles of course. Black Tusk (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I know re the Kitimats; one issue is so few of them are actually named, and the unofficial names (e.g. Chatsquot) have to be used; there are a number of named glaciers in that area; most of such a section at this point would be parks (Kitlope, Fjordland, etc) and landforms (few of which are written - Don Peninsula, North Coast Archipelago - and islands (which are, e.g. Princess Royal Island). Around Rupert and Terrace there's a bunch of named summits, we just don't have articles; Shames Mountain Ski Area is in there, though although that's already in the ski resorts template.Skookum1 (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Re the Cdn Rockies, note that that's actually a sub-range template; not sure what's on {{RockyMountains}} (if that exists) but it may be broken up already into Wyoming Rockies, Colorado Rockies etc; despite the geometric nature of the state boundaries they do tend to work out in groups according to the states they're in; other than the Idaho-Montana border ones....Skookum1 (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, the Canadian Rockies are just as large as the Coast Mountains according to maps. There is more officially named mountains in the Kitimat Ranges than I thought there was, including: Chatsquot Mountain, Anchor Cone, Mount Blane, Mount Clague, Mount Bucey, Recumbent Peak, Mount Salvus, Kasiks Mountain, Shroud Mountain, Mount Morris, Keays Peak, Mount Suden, Morin Peak, Mount Finley, Cordierite Crag, Mount Hodgkinson, Carm Peak, Morton Peak, Mount William Brown, Mount Kenney, Mount Neilson, Mount Leighton, Mount Hadden, Mount Conroy, Kadeen Mountain, Alastair Peak, Mount Carthew, Mount Madden, Davidson Peak, Cooper Peak, Mount Chapleau, Mount Dodge, Spokshute Mountain, Mount Morrison, Mount Steckel and Balmoral Peak. I will create stubs for all these red links latter. Black Tusk (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, the Cdn Rockies are, or very nearly so, but most of the peak articles extant are only for Robson southwards; hardly anything northwest of there, and like the Coast Mountains lots of signficant but unnamed peaks (esp north from Lake Williston), though Ulysses, Sylvia and Lloyd George I think have articles by now. BTW I looked at Continental Divide of the Americas last night and tried to revise the main description as to the divide's route through northern BC; I think their map is a bit wrong, they don't get it going far enough west, i.e. around the basin of the Omineca and Nation Rivers; and while I know it goes via Arctic and Pacific Lakes I don't know when it reaches the Rockies proper....Skookum1 (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say maybe the map could be wrong because it was created by a Wiki-user since lots of maps on Wikipedia are created by users. But the Continental Divide of the Americas map appears to have been obtained from an edition of the National Atlas of the United States. Since it is a work ceated in the United States, it could very be wrong because you and I have spotted other mistakes in United States works (e.g. Casacde Range vs. Cascade Volcanoes). Black Tusk (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Crest Mountain

Just FYI, someone essentially hijacked this stub article you created about a mountain in Canada and re-wrote it as a commercial advertisement for a private development in North Carolina. I have reverted the article back to it's original subject/purpose and warned the editor. You may wish to add it to your watch list as I am not as active as I once was and may not see it if the editor decides to revert it. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I actually have not seen that page since I created it. Black Tusk (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Edziza shield volcanoes

Hi, I know you know a lot more about Canadian volcanism than me, so I'm hoping you can help me understand some of your recent edits to our list of shield volcanoes. I'm puzzled about why you changed my listing of "Cache Hill and Camp Hill, Mount Edziza volcanic complex (British Columbia)", which I believe accurately reflected the cited source, to your unsourced version "Mount Edziza volcanic complex (British Columbia)". There seem to be at least a few sources which state that important parts of the complex are not shield volcanoes, so I thought it was important to identify the parts that were. I looked up the sources cited in the Edziza article where it claims the central lava plateau is a shield volcano and where it discusses its composition (except for the Wood and Keinle book, which I couldn't access online), and didn't find anything directly supporting this, so I went with the clearest source I found supporting shield volcanoes at Edziza. But I don't know much about the complex. I'm hoping you can provide some more sources (or more details from the offline source) that support your version.

Another issue is whether (the relevant parts of) Edziza should be placed in section for active volcanoes, or not. I'd prefer to discuss that on the list's talk page, because there are several volcanic fields/complexes/etc with different levels of activity exhibited in different volcanic structures, which are affected by the same issue. -- Avenue (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well first of all, the source you cited refers to the stratovolcano Mount Edziza, not the Mount Edziza volcanic complex per se, which is why I deleted it. The articles are about two different things. It appears as if the plateau itself is a massive low-profile shield volcano capped with several smaller volcanoes (e.g. Cache Hill and Camp Hill), many of which are monogenetic and will never erupt again. The Geological Survey of Canada website classifies Cache Hill as a cinder cone[1] and Camp Hill as a cinder cone,[2] which makes a lot more sense because shield volcanoes are more and larger than hills. I even checked the coordinates for those two small volcanoes on those two links and your Mount Edziza reference and they do in fact look like nothing but cinder cones; most of the plateau is dotted with monogenetic cinder cones.

As for the sections, the most recent eruptive activity at the complex could have occurred in the past 500 or 300 years, and the existence of hot springs and seismic activity suggests that magmatic heat is still present and thus still geologically active. All activity is recent enough to considered the complex to be active. Black Tusk (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into that. It does seem odd for shield volcanoes to be described as hills. We still need to cite a source for the plateau being a shield volcano. I'll look around some more. -- Avenue (talk)

The only source I have in my hands right now is the Wood and Keinle book, which says: The complex includes a group of overlapping basaltic shields, felsic stratovolcanoes, domes, small calderas, and monogenetic cones, ranging in age from 7.5 Ma to <1,300 yr BP. Four central felsic volcanoes, Armadillo Peak, Spectrum Range, Ice Peak, and Mount Edziza, lie along the northerly trending axis of an elliptical, composite basaltic shield. The shield forms a broad intermontane plateau, dotted with monogenetic cinder cones and bounded by steep escarpments which expose tiers of columnar basalt flows interlayered with distal clastic and pyroclastic deposits derived from the central, felsic volcano. The book includes references by volcanologist Jack Souther. Black Tusk (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems pretty clear, thanks. I'll update its entry in the list to make clear that the lava plateau is the shield volcano here (not the whole complex). -- Avenue (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, no the composite shield/plateau forms the base of the complex. The stratovolcanoes, domes, calderas and cinder cones lie on top. Black Tusk (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That was my understanding, yes, and I don't think I've said anything that contradicts that. So I'm not sure what point of mine you disagreed with. Was it that the complex as a whole is not a shield volcano? -- Avenue (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not disagree with anything. What I was trying to say is the composite shield/plateau forms the base of the complex so anything lying on top of the shield is obviously part of the composite shield as well. That is why it is called a volcanic complex ;-). I know you and other users probably think I am a arguable person because of all my talk on talk pages, but I am not per se. Most of my talk that sounds like I am arguing is mostly from stress build up in the fact that most Canadian geo-subjects are often left out or forgotten, including on Wikipedia; that is one of the reasons why volcanologists of the Geological Survey of Canada like my postings on Wikipedia because Canadian volcanology is not very recognizable and they do not have the time to post infomation on the GSC website. So if you have any further questions about Canadian volcanism (which I know you probably have), my talk page or the Volcanism of Canada Workgroup is the place to ask them, although my talk page is the best place because you would probably get a faster response..... Black Tusk (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean that I thought you were being argumentative. I'm sorry if I implied that, or that it was unreasonable for you to disagree. (Disagreement can be good, at least when it's civil.) I think we do still disagre, in that you think structures built on top of the shield are clearly part of it, and I feel they are not. At least, once they get to a certain size, I think it is better to distinguish them from the shield itself. The way I described Mount Erebus and Mount Etna in the list reflects the same principle. Since this is not an issue restricted to Canada, I think it's probably better to move this discussion back to Talk:List of shield volcanoes. -- Avenue (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you didn't do anything to make me say that. It is just something I have noticed about myself on talk pages. But I also have a disorder so my mind could just be messing things around. I am supposed to get brain tests done sometime in the future to see if something shows up. BTW would you be interested in bringing Volcanism of Canada to FA status? The article is getting extremely long so I finally created sub-articles by region in April. It seems to be complete enough IMO. Black Tusk (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew it. Hawaii is more important to you like other WP Volcano members because of its volcanic activity. But guess what? Canada has a way longer history of volcanism spanning back to the Precambrian at least 3 billion years ago and has had a lot more eruptions than Hawaii and the Canadian landscape still remains volcanically active to this day. What is this supposed to tell you? It tells you Canadian volcanism a lot more significant than Hawaiian volcanism and it always will be because Hawaiian volcanoes only stay active for a few million years before the Pacific Plate passes over the Hawaii hotspot then become extinct and erode down to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean to form guyots. Canada has had millions of eruptions unlike Hawaii and Canada has long-lived volcanoes that date back to the Miocene period. The Edziza complex dates back to at least 7.5 million years ago and still remains active to this day and the 14.9 million year old Level Mountain Range shield has been active at least in the past 2.5 million years, which is still recent in the geological record. You other volcano people have lots to learn about the history of volcanism and its future activity and effects. Volcanoes that erupt continuously like there is no tomorrow (i.e. Hawaiian) is controlled by volcanologists and it is like being amazed by a fountain..... And Avenue, I am not trying to hesitate you by talking like this, but you would likely be surprised how significant Canadian volcanism is in the real world. Your mention about Canadian volcanism having "low" activeness during one of our talks is not correct. It is correct that Canada has relatively very few eruptions throught the Holocene unlike other parts of the Pacific Ring of Fire, but if you compare Canadian volcanism to Hawaiian volcanism, Canada would have a lot more eruptions than Hawaii. What I am basically saying is although it is correct that Hawaiian volcanism has been showing more frequent activity than Canadian volcanism, the term "most active" refers to number of known or dated volcanic eruptions rather than activity alone. If you compare all Hawaiian eruptions with the number of eruptions that have occurred in Canada, then you will find out that Canada has been much more volcanically active over a longer period of time unlike Hawaii. Black Tusk (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed your previous (2 June) response. (I need to prune my watchlist back; 4000 pages is too much for me to keep up with at present.) I would like to help with Volcanism of Canada, but I don't think I can do much in the near future; I'll be going abroad for a month in a couple of weeks, and I'll be moving house before then. With Eldfell currently at FAR and Loihi Seamount at FAC, my time for in-depth editing was going to be very stretched already. I will go and have a look at it tonight, though. Usually I just fix typos and such like until I get more familiar with the content of such an extensive article, so please don't expect much to start with.

I'm not going to try to judge whether volcanism in Hawaii or Canada is more significant. I will say I've enjoyed seeing and learning about volcanism in Hawaii, but I've been ignorant of volcanic features I might have observed on my previous visits to Canada, which is a shame. I'm looking forward to learning more and being more aware of what I could see the next time I go.

Good luck with those tests. -- Avenue (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Sorry for my ugly response. I thought you were ignoring what I was saying like other users; no wonder where I get my anger from. Volcanism of Northern Canada, Volcanism of Western Canada, and Volcanism of Eastern Canada are articles I am about to expand since creation and eventually bring those to at least GA status. But I think the Volcanism of Canada should be the one focused on most because it is very lengthy (probably the largest article related to WP Volcanoes), detailed, tons of references, links, etc. But some of the references still need to be filled out.

Be aware most of Canada's western volcanoes are located in remote areas. Lots of the volcanoes elsewhere (e.g. eastern Canada) are barely noticeable because of old age and only volcanic rocks remain (e.g. see my File:Temagami greenstone belt pillow lava.jpg). Black Tusk (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Spam

Loihi Seamount FAC round two. Spamming all active members of WP:VOLCANO. Happy editing! ResMar 00:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nechako Canyon

just created this stub and its parks counterpart Nechako Canyon Protected Area, added Volcanism of Western Canada but was unsure of what may be more specific in the way of a category.Skookum1 (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of any better category than Volcanism of Western Canada. I am also not sure the Coast Mountains and other mountain ranges related to magmatism should be included in that category. The Coast Mountains are the roots of an ancient volcanic arc that formed sometime during the Late Cretaceous period. Black Tusk (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was more wondering about volcanic features and where to draw the line; e.g. Cheslatta Falls comes down over the precipice on the side of the Nechako Canyon; should it be included? Also I hadn't heard before of the Spences Bridge Group - see the BC Parks link on Blue Earth Lake Provincial Park.Skookum1 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It would likely be appropiate enough to include those kind of features in that cat. I have never herd of the Spences Bridge Group but I just did a quick google search and it appears to be 100 million year old volcanics in the southern Intermontane Belt related to subduction volcanism. Black Tusk (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just created a stub for the Spences Bridge Group. The two stratigraphic units of the volcanic group appear to be volcanoes. Black Tusk (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Accessdate parameter

I saw in this diff that you added an "accessmonthday" and/or "accessdaymonth" parameter. Please be informed that these are deprecated. The preferred way is to put day, month, and year together in the "accessdate" parameter.
See also {{Cite web}}. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Who cares. It is just day, month and year. I do not give a damn period..... Black Tusk (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I also find it ironic for you to say this to me because I already know..... Black Tusk (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Hot springs of British Columbia started

Yo...I just created this cat this morning because of some work on the Outline of BC page (see new section at bottom of Talk:British Columbia re bloating of See also section) where I started linking categories to items on that outline; I've only worked it up as far as Fairmont; would you mind doing G-Z to put the rest of the BC ones in, I'm swamped....Skookum1 (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem..... Black Tusk (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know incase you are interested I remade the List of Northern Cordilleran volcanoes page a few hours ago to make it more complete and tidy. It has the same purpose as the List of Cascade volcanoes page. The Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province page is still quite small compared to the Cascade Volcanoes page, but I am plaining on making a huge edit to expand its needed improvements. Black Tusk (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Volcanism in Canada

I am willing to help, but, please, do not expect too much as I am busy now. Ruslik_Zero 11:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the most noticable problem that will be mentioned in the candidate is some of the references need to be filled out. So that is probably where to start. Black Tusk (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Earthquakes Project Newsletter

The WikiProject Earthquakes newsletter for September 2009 has been released. Be sure to check on our status. ceranthor 11:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"The Pinnacle" - Stikine River

I did a radius search on Chutine, British Columbia and this came up. Seems clearly volcanic, not sure how you'd search for it in vulcanology/geology databases other than by location.Skookum1 (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mt Lehua

Thought you might find this interesting, though it's not directly to do with volcanoes.Skookum1 (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how the mountain is named for a character in Hawaiian mythology, especially since it's at the The Volcano and Lava Lakes. BT (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Unuk Finger

Unuk Finger, on the other hand, seems clearly to be a volcanic plug, by what its name indicates anyway and its proximity to Lava Fork/The Volcano.Skookum1 (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Castle Rock

that's gonna be a blue link no doubt here is the BCGNIS entry, it's in an area where it's most likely a volcanic outcrop, no?Skookum1 (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's a volcanic plug. There is an article about it as Castle Rock (volcano). Too bad there is not much info about that feature; it's one of the volcanoes in the NCVP that has had earthquakes since 1985. BT (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sezill Hot Springs

I'm busy making/expanding List of Boundary Peaks of the Alaska-British Columbia/Yukon border so don't have time to distract by creating stubs for such like this hot spring near Edziza.Skookum1 (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I will create a stub for it. I wonder if these hot springs are at the Sezill Volcano. BT (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably; it's not a gazetted name so not in BCGNIS but if you mention the springs on its page and give their coordinates, then apply {{GeoGroupTemplate}} to the page and you'll be able to generate a map showing their relative location. Sezill Creek is nearby but I don't think there'd be much piont in GeoGropuing it that wayapge on the Unuk-Lava Fork are that had all coordinates of items mentioned could be a good way to generate a local map; ditto for other clusters like ht Tuyas.....(Tuya Range I mean). Tip: at BCGNIS % is the wildcard, so to find the rest of the hot springs taht don't ahve articles (not many), search "%Hot Spring" and all those that have that in their name will call up; some might be found by "%spring". Tallheo Hot Springs might be part of the Anahim hotspot, if it's not already an article.Skookum1 (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There are many springs not in BCGNIS....if you want a nice littel expedition, find Twenty Mile Bay on Harrison Lake and camp out there; near the piont there's a spring in the woods, built a cabin I've heard; I've camped there but we didn't go look for the spring; we paddled out to Long Island (Harrison Lake) and had a look around - dy was ting sasquatch, but any fool knows 'squatch don't swim, it's why they stink so much....but they do like hot springs LOL. Supposedly there's one on upper Sloquet Creek and another up near Snowcap Lake, where Volcanic Brown's camp was...I've rumours of others in the bakc valleys up in there; Twenty Mile Bay's accessible, most of those aren't though :-) - though Sloquet theere's a good side road from Douglas up to the springs, so I'm told....Skookum1 (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip; I always wanted to figure out how to search hot springs on BCGNIS for creating hot spring articles. Sadly, I do not know the volcanic nature for lots of BC hot springs. The Sezill springs seem to be located on Sezill Creek southeast of Sezill Volcano near the Spectrum Range. BT (talk) 06:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I've replied on my talk page.

Btw, while I'm running through your article, how about you vote on mine... ResMar 19:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been looking through the featured article candidate for the Hawaii article since yesterday and looks good in my opinion. But I am going to add a little more info in the Current activity and hazards section on the NCVP page in a little bit. BT (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you wait until I finish the copyedit? I'm in the process and don't want to edit-conflict you :) BTW, the beggining of my notes are on the article's talk page. ResMar 19:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh and if it looks good can you please vot on it? I don't want to speak too loudly, but a vote from a specilist like you (or Ceran) would carry much further then that of a vandalhunter and a hawaii-dude. ResMar 19:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 21:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I saw you were having difficulties with the alts, so I did them for you. I also fixed ref #7. When it pops up at FA, tell me, I'll vote for you :) ResMar 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes...

		The Volcanoes Barnstar
		Sometimes, I can't fathom why you're so frustrated. Volcanism in Canada is one of our better-covered subjects, thanks to a certain someone r.r *hint hint*... ResMar 12:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not actually frustrated, things just drive me nuts sometimes, especially when it's largely one user doing the work..... BT (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Volcano observatories

Hi Black Tusk - good to see a few new stubs on volcano observatories, but they don't really count as geo-stubs, as far as I can tell. The observatories themselves are more building complexes run by part of the USGS, so they'd be better using {{XX-struct-stub}} (where XX is the name of a US state) and {{US-org-stub}}. If you're planning to make any more, could you use those templates instead? Cheers - and keep up the good work! :) Grutness...wha? 00:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I used the {{XX-geo-stub}} because the main purpose of volcano observatories is to monitor volcanoes and volcanoes/volcano monitoring is related to geology/geography, making volcano observatories related to Earth sciences. BT (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

US regional geology, yes, that would make sense (in which case {{US-geology-stub}} might be a better template) but the geo-stubs aren't really for geography or geology as a study, rather they are for specific geographic features. Grutness...wha? 05:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Help

If you need help clearing the ref stuff, this should help. :) ResMar 01:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I still don't really understand a thing about the referencing issue or Fifelfoo's problem with references. If he has a problem with how things are referenced, he is most likely the one to fix the references because he obviously knows a lot more about referencing than I do. BT (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

NCVP

I'm in a review for this. Tony1's opposes are always meant well and to improve the article. Sometimes they get a little nitpicky, so make sure what you're editing still makes sense scientifically. I'll finish the review in the next hour. Best, ceranthor 20:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already fixed most of his issues, he likely still needs to review my contributions. BT (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I give up on the nomination. It's too much hard work doing a FAC with one user. WP Volcanoes continues with it's failure from a lack of contributions as usual. BT (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry the article failed. Next time it's sure to run smoothly! ceranthor 17:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Could always try again. I got most of Mav's problems solved last night. Now the expansion of volcanic history in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province article can go in the Volcanic history of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province article to help the NCVP article from getting longer. BT (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Chilcotin Group resource

I found this GSC report on the Chasm-Dog Creek formations of the Chilcotin Group; it has all kinds of stuff in it. I found it by looking for Dog Creek Dome, which given Dog Creek's presence on the Chilcotin Group page I thought maybe was the vent; it's not, it's a limestone hill.....the description of the Chilcotin Group's area I amended a bit, but the inclusion of Skoatl Point and the Kettle River formations means that it has to be substantially expanded ("it" being the description/location of the Group); note also on Black Dome Mountain that it sounds as if the Chilcotin Group were only between the Fraser and the Pacific Ranges; more like it extends from the Okanagan Highland northwestwards to the farther Chilcotin Plateau huh?Skookum1 (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Right. The Chilcotin Group article needs some big time expanding like I did to the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province article, which is close to FA status; mostly just minor changes here and there. Is there an article about The Chasm? I could start an article for that feature if it needs one. BT (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Chasm Provincial Park is it...I'm not sure that there's a need for a separate article on the landform, as similar with Bull Canyon and Bull Canyon Park and other cases; The Chasm (British Columbia) could be made to redirect to it I guess....maybe there's grounds for a separate article I haven't considered/studied the matter....some content could be on Chasm, British Columbia but that's for the old PO and erstwhile mill (now a sort yard I think) at the head of the gorge; the road there is teh route of the original Cariboo Road btw...many early accounts of travel on that route, I think including Lord Dufferin (then G-G) are available for historical embellshment. Not a large formation relative to those elsewhere in teh Chilcotin and Clearwater, but back then one of the only ones known, and the only one by a major route, so it got "press"....and eventually its park, which was one of BC's first...Skookum1 (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization

Totally tired of it. I'm working on a reorganization of the Volcanoes project. ResMar 17:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I was surprized the category section was not updated: [3]. BT (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes well, I REALLY want something to come out of this. All the details are on the talk page, but right now I'm purging inactive users, and thinking over how to hunt for new members. ResMar 14:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Plop

Poke, poke. Happy New Year! ResMar 01:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK problem

Hello! Your submission of 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! LittleMountain5 23:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes

On January 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project 12:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hey, I supported. You did a great job with that article; I hope you write some more earthquake articles like that! I could always use someone better than me to help out. ;) ceranthor 20:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know when the content of an article is good. My next FA nomination would likely be another article related to volcanism. The Milbanke Sound Group article still needs a bit of work. I searched as much as possible for information about this volcanic group, but there is not much to be added because there is apparently not much known about it. Magic Mountain is probably better to turn into an FA. It's such an unusual hydrothermal field. BT (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Whistler - volcano?

It's a bit of a local myth in the resort that Whistler Mountain is/was a volcano, but given its location it wouldn't be all that surprising if it were true; see Talk:Whistler_Mountain#Mountain_range_and_geologic_information.Skookum1 (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page. BTW do you know what range the Milbanke Sound Group lies in? The article currently has Kitimat Ranges, but I'm not too sure about that. BT (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Milbanke Sound Group

On February 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Milbanke Sound Group, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations and great work on 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes! Awickert (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, much congrats! :) ceranthor 21:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The best work of the Volcanism of Canada Workgroup so far :-). BT (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW Ceranthor since the Anahim hotspot is listed on your to do list, I am starting to collect information to rewrite and expand this article as well. BT (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Milbanke cones re Kitimat Ranges

I got your FB chat message much later than you sent it; I don't use FB chat very much at all partly because I'm not online consistently enough; if I'm anywhere on chat it's MSN. The cones are part of the Kitimat Ranges only insofar that the North Coastal Archipelago is part of the Kitimat Ranges; conceptually if they're summits they're part of the range, but if they're just formations then you're saying "is this geological formation part of this geographic unit?". the answer remains "yes" but they're really two different concepts; the Kitimat Ranges as a concept is about topographic classification, not geologic. North Coast Archipelago or North Coastal Archipelago needs an article btw but I'd like to find more refs than just Holland for that....Skookum1 (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright. However, the Milbanke Sound Group contains both geographic and geologic features. The group itself is pretty much just a group of five small cones with unknown relationships with each other. But it also includes lava flows that originated from the five cones. BTW since you mentioned topographic, I have started making topographic maps for a few volcanoes, including Edziza, Hoodoo, Meager, Heart Peaks, Level Mountain, Ilgachuz Range, Rainbow Range, Itcha Range, The Volcano and Volcano Mountain in Yukon. Not all of these topos are just for the volcanoes, but also the surrounding terrain like other mountains, likes, rivers etc. But I still have to upload the maps on Commons to place them in their articles. BT (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Prindle

Thanks for catching the Pleistocene/Pliocene error. I'd like to upload photos but don't want to infringe copyrights.... If your curious PV can be seen at http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF19/1951pic.jpg and MP can be seen at http://59a2.org/prindle/200507/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by CGX (talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A warning about personal attacks, copying text, and maintaining a neutral point of view

Black Tusk,

I just noticed this particular edit summary [4] ("remove map and false statements added by User:Seattle Skier") which you made in August 2008. I'm very disappointed that you would post anything like this, even worse in an edit summary which can not be changed, and such comments constitute a violation of WP:NPA. I encourage you to read WP:NPA carefully, in particular note the sentence "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." If you ever do anything like this again, I will report you on WP:AN and let another admin decide what action is appropriate. By the way, there was absolutely nothing false about that paragraph, all of which was supportable by WP:RS.

In addition, I am very disappointed by your user page, large portions of which you have copied directly from my user page with no credit or attribution whatsoever. Why would you do so? Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but I am not flattered by your imitation in this case. You are certainly free under the terms of licensing to copy anything from my user page, but doing so reflects very poorly on yourself and on your ability to think independently. You cannot seem to stop copying text instead of writing it yourself. You have had a LONG history of copying text into Wikipedia from various sources, your user contributions include hundreds of such edits including severe copyvios, and you have been warned by other admins about such copying in the past. Please make sure that you are no longer copying text into Wikipedia in violation of copyright.

Actually, most of the information on my userpage is writen by myself. It is a bit questionable that you state "In addition, I am very disappointed by your user page, large portions of which you have copied directly from my user page with no credit or attribution whatsoever." Your userpage has no information about mining, earthquakes, name origin, awards or the Geological Survey of Canada whatsoever. Thus, it is not copyied from your page. As you have probably seen, {User DGAF} is my userpage. I DO NOT GIVE A FUCK for rules, laws or any other related thing and never have. This also goes for copyright, even though I have not copied text from a while. BT (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You also have a problem with WP:NPOV, in particular you need to carefully read the section about "Undue weight". You are clearly a strong "fan" of Canadian volcanoes, and many of your edits reflect this, which can be problematic. For example, adding large numbers of Canadian volcanoes to articles, templates, and lists about the Cascade Volcanoes is is violation of NPOV and undue weight. The Canadian portion of the Cascade volcanoes is very small and insignificant compared to the over 2000 separate Cascade volcanoes in CA, OR, and WA. In addition, the northernmost volcs (Silverthrone and Franklin Glacier) are not well studied, their origin is not well known (and may never be), and they may not even be Cascade volcanoes (you already are aware of this). Please stop pushing your personal preference and point-of-view regarding these volcanoes, in the absence of solid scientific evidence linking them to the Cascadia subduction zone. All WP:RS state that the matter is not well studied and in doubt.

It seems like you have problems with WP:NPOV yourself Seattle Skier. I do not have much of a problem with NPOV because much of the content I add to articles are referenced with reliable sources. Where are your sources for all the volcanoes in the Cascade volcanoes template? Where does your "major volcano" classification come from? The Cascade volcanoes template is pretty much a problematic WP:NPOV template because it appears to be made of opinions from Wikipedia users, given the fact that there are no sources given for the volcanoes listed. Why does it matter if Franklin has small amounts of erupted material? What really matters is how big or high the volcano is, not how much it erupted. BT (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In the past, I have given you a lot of leeway (as have other editors) because you seemed to be of a very young age, and many of your mistakes were forgivable because of that. However, over 3 years have passed since you started editing WP, and that should be enough time for you to have started acting in a much more grown-up manner.

You've made a lot of major positive contributions to Wikipedia, especially to volcano articles. Don't continue to spoil your positive contributions with childish attacks on other editors and blatant copying of text from other places. I certainly hope that you have already stopped these sorts of inappropriate behavior and edits.

--Seattle Skier (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I also now noticed your abusive tone and ad hominem attacks made on Template talk:Cascade volcanoes in Dec 2008. You really must read WP:NPA and abide by it. How many other places have you made such attacks on me and perhaps on other editors? I hope I don't have to go through your entire contribution history and open a case at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, I am extremely busy in real life and have no wish to waste my time trying to get other editors to punish you. I hope you will improve your conduct on your own without needing to be forced.

And please re-read and familiarize yourself with other Wikipedia policies, in particular Wikipedia:Verifiability and the section "Burden of evidence". It is up to you to find evidence to support your claims for inclusion of material on Silverthrone and Franklin in the Cascades. Otherwise, that material must be deleted per WP policy. --Seattle Skier (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my personal attacks and I'm aware of them. It's not my fault. The only personal attack I'm familar with is the one on Template:Cascade volcanoes. When I wrote most of the stuff about Silverthrone and Franklin, I was a bit ticked off because of our conflict between Silverthrone and Franklin with other Casacde volcanoes (e.g. I added Franklin because of my reasons in the first place, then you removed it. Then I added it back and so on). When I'm angry I'm angry and it can get extreme. Sometimes I don't even have control over it. I'm also aware of you calling me a "highschool kid" in the past on someone's talk page, which you attacked me as well because I'm not.....Lmao administrators are not supposed to attack or have edit wars with other Wikipedians. Instead, administrators are supposed to help Wikipedians and other stuff. Just because you are an administrator don't mean your special. I thought we had a friendship. If not, that does not affect me. I do not like lots of people in the first place.

Copying text from copyrighted website is actually long gone. Punishing me just for what I have done sounds just as childish as what you said about my contributions. That's one thing I do not like about Wikipedia. It's kind of like: You are going to jail because you copied or have been copying from a website. Like who cares? Wikipedia is too extreme on this kind of stuff. And, to me, blocking a user is an attack. Lots of people copy information from copyrighted websites anyway, and lots of people get insulted every day. It's part of life and nobody can not stop it. This goes for Wikipedia as well: lots of articles get vandalized, edit wars, and spammed everyday. There is nothing you, me, or Wikipedia can do to stop it. Those that do try and protect articles from stuff like this are worthless and pointless because everything just comes back again and always will. If I copyied text from a copyrighted website, it would normally not be something major anyway. Something very small doesn't hurt anything. Copying from a PD website and so on is allowed. Hey, in real life I cross private property and other nonsense stuff and I do not care for it. Also, blocking me would not be very smart anyway. I'm like the only Wikipedian that creates and works on Canadian volcanism articles. Volcanologists of the Geological Survey of Canada are glad for my contributions.

Also, It dosen't matter if the Canadian portion of the Cascade Arc is minor or not. If a volcano is major it's major. If it's minor it's minor. Take a look at some sources about Silverthrone and Franklin. The two volcanoes are part of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, which is part of the Cascade Arc. Any volcano in the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt is part of the Cascade Arc, and and any volcano in the Cascade Arc is a Cascade volcano. Volcanics at Franklin and Silverthrone are similar to other volcanoes thoughout the Cascade Arc. Dacite, rhyolite, andesite and basaltic andesite are widespread in the Cascade Arc and typically occur at subduction volcanoes. Volcanologist Catherine Hickson has made it quite clear for these volcanoes.

The reason I post lots of stuff about Canadian volcanoes on pages is simple; lots of people are not aware of volcanoes in Canada and lots of the Canadian volcanism articles do not get attention like other NA volcanoes. Not spreading the articles throught Wikipedia does not help anything.

What do you mean by with no credit or attribution whatsoever? Every thing on my userpage is true and written by myself. How do you even know if it's false? You don't even know who I am. Don't be jealous because I haven't given proof for what I have added to my userpage. It's not my fault our userpages are similar. However, if I remember correctly, I seen a statement somewhere that you based your userpage from other userpages. Did you make those users disapointed as well? I don't know if that's something you have actually done though, so don't break out if you haven't. BT (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your statement You cannot seem to stop copying text instead of writing it yourself. is absolutely incorrect. More than 80% of my contributes are not copyvios. And when someone is a fan of something, they know what they are doing because they most likely have more knowledge about the subject than someone who is not a major fan for themselves. My additions to Canadian volcanoes in the Cascade volcano template is actually not inappropiate. I added those Cascade volcanoes for several reasons just like Franklin. Deleting Mount Silverthrone is poor form. Silverthrone is likely the highest of all volcanoes in the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt and is one of the notable volcanic features of the Silverthrone Caldera. And as for Devastator, it has a different reason. Your attack Please stop pushing your personal preference and point-of-view regarding these volcanoes, in the absence of solid scientific evidence linking them to the Cascadia subduction zone. is also nonsense. If you do some heavy research about Silverthrone and Franklin and get to know them better and think greatly about them, they are very similar to other Cascade volcanoes just like I stated above. When I had contact to Cathernie Hickson (a Canadian volcanologist formally part of the GSC) in 2008, she agreed those volcanoes are part of the Cascades based on their chemistry. In addition, the Pemberton Volcanic Belt is also related to Cascadia subduction. It was formed about 29 million years ago when the Cascade Volcanic Arc was young, and Silverthrone and Franklin are constructed upon it as well. The Pemberton Volcanic Belt also includes intrusions and volcanics in the Canadian Cascades, including Coquihalla Mountain, which is a major preserved Miocene-aged stratovolcano.

Now that you have stated Please stop pushing your personal preference and point-of-view regarding these volcanoes, in the absence of solid scientific evidence linking them to the Cascadia subduction zone., where does the term Cascade Volcanoes come from? It turns out that it isn't commonly used in volcanological sources and it's inappropiate in the first place. 1: not everything in the Cascade Volcanic Arc is a volcano. 2: the Cascade Volcanic Arc also includes subvolcanic intrusions. 3:Cascade Volcanoes sounds more like volcanoes of the Cascade Range. I'm the one that chose the term, yes, but I changed it's title to Cascade Volcanic Belt because of my reasons. Cascade Volcanic Belt is probably not a very good term either though because there is lack of using that term as well. It turns out the move back to Cascade Volcanoes is an Americanism because the users that chose the term Cascade Volcanoes for the title were Americans (apart from myself) and Americans generally consider the Cascade Volcanic Arc to only lie in the United States, which it dosen't. BT (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Black Tusk, thanks for your apology above. And I'm sorry if I have upset you further, but you are clearly aware of your own emotional and anger management issues which you mention above. I hope you succeed in maintaining control so that we can have a civil discussion. I do think that we need to split this discussion into 2 sections, one about your violations of WP policy and the other about including Silverthrone/Franklin in the Cascade arc. So I've added a new section for that below.

Critical copyright issue

Regarding policy: the Wikipedia:Copyright violations policy is not flexible or negotiable, since there are legal considerations involved. Your disdainful attitude towards this critical policy is worrisome. Stating that "More than 80% of my contributes are not copyvios" is unacceptable, the only acceptable standard is 100% free from copyvio. You have made over 16,000 edits to the mainspace, and if about 20% of those are copyvio (more than 3000 copyvios???), then that is a huge problem, and all of those articles will need to be edited to delete those copyvio contributions. You do claim that "Copying text from copyrighted website is actually long gone", which I certainly hope is true. No one wants to "punish you" for actions long ago, but the copyvio text still needs to be deleted. Your copyvios have created a huge mess for other editors to clean up. For example, I just deleted some copyvio text on Silverthrone Mountain yesterday, which you had added years ago.

Unfortunately, the massive extent of the copyvios which you have introduced to Wikipedia seems to leave no choice but to file a report at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. This is a very serious matter, and not to be undertaken lightly. The outcome is likely to be the deletion of a substantial portion of your WP contributions, with much collateral damage to pages which you have created or contributed to. It may also lead to other community action, perhaps including a lengthy block or ban IF copyvios have continued recently. Is this what you want? Can you think of a better solution which could avoid this?

I have not made more than 3,000 copyvios, not even close. My edits are largely "non-copyvios" and I am willing to rewrite/delete the copyvio if I knew what parts of the articles are copyvio. I no longer remember because most of my copyvios were added more than 2 years ago. I just rewriten the geology section of the The Thumb to avoid this problem. It did have changes compared to the copyrighted source, but most of it seemed to have been the same. Even if I were to be blocked from Wikipedia, that would not solve problems. Like I said earlier, Wikipedia gets stuff like this all the time. A user could easily just sign on to another computer and start editing from that one and so on. BT (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Other stuff

As for your claims that I'm attacking you and that admins should not do so: I've never used my admin tools in any dispute with you, nor made any personal attacks on talk pages or in edit summaries. You say "And, to me, blocking a user is an attack", but that is not true if done in accordance with policy. The message I posted above, harsh though it may be, is not a personal attack on you, but a warning against continuing your longstanding pattern of policy violations--I attempted to comment ONLY on your editing behavior and contributions, not on you personally (although I may have edged too close to personal, in which case I apologize for that). I have tried to help you improve your editing in the past, as have other editors and admins. But at some point, you need to take responsibility for your own actions. Claiming that "It's not my fault" (as you state twice above) is not a valid excuse every time.

Excuse me, but it's true. I was refering to may anger problems. If I just loose my mind I normally just go crazy. It may sound a bit awkward, but it happens. I don't even know why I'm like that on here. However, I have seen a decrease within the years. BT (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As for your userpage, not a big deal, leave it that way if you want, I don't mind. But anyone can easily see that you copied most of the first couple paragraphs from my userpage. I never claimed that anything on your userpage was false, I don't know if it's true or false. But as for my own userpage, I have never copied text from other userpages, and have never stated anywhere that my userpage is based on other userpages. Not sure where you thought you read that, but it's not true.

I think that having an ongoing dispute with any editor is counter-productive and a waste of everyone's time, which would be better spent either editing WP or doing something else. So let's try to keep this from getting personal. Our paths will likely cross many more times on WP in the future, and I hope that we can both behave civilly to resolve any future editing disputes. However, continued violations of WP policy will result in appropriate community action against you. Don't force things down that unpleasant path. --Seattle Skier (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(Please reply to the copyright issue here, I will not open a case immediately.)

Of course not and yes the copyvio can be avoid. I mentioned above I have not copied text for a long time. The main reason I did this in the first place was because at the time I did not have great spelling and you are probably aware of that. How do you know about these copyvios? The copyvios are most likely from when I used to make extensive copyvio edits and I will rewrite/remove the copyvio if needed. BT (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Silverthrone/Franklin as Cascade Volcanoes (or in Cascade arc)

So lets try to have a separate discussion about this issue. First of all, you seem to think that my personal preference is to exclude those two (Silverthrone and Franklin). That is not true, my personal preference is to include both in the Cascade arc, although I think that Silverthrone Caldera is "major" (large caldera with major volcanic deposits, lava extrusion, and domes) while Franklin Glacier is not (despite its possibly large area, the actual amount of lava produced appears to be tiny, just a few small outcrops). But my personal preference is irrelevant, what matters is Wikipedia:Verifiability in reliable sources. I want to include them, but sources state that the matter is in doubt.

Alright. To me it just seemed like you had something against them being included. I know the GSC does state the Silverthrone and Franklin Glacier complexes have unclear tectonic affinity because it has been only minimally studied and I agree, but their rock compositions and locations tells a bit IMO. Andesite is pretty much only located at subduction volcanoes and same for many other volcanics that occur at subduction zones. If andesite and other subduction-related volcanics exist at Silverthrone and Franklin, why would they not be subduction-related? The only subduction zone present near Silverthrone and Franklin is the Cascadia subduction zone. Also note that Franklin is much older than Silverthrone. The oldest volcanics known at Silverthrone are only about a million years old whereas Franklin is 8-6 million years old per the GSC website. Franklin also appears to be a very long dormant volcano from current knowledge of it (per GSC). The first recorded Franklin event was 6-8 million years ago whereas the seconed recorded event occurred 2-3 million years ago. There is like five million years of dormancy between those two eruptive periods. Because Franklin is likely way older than Silverthrone, it is probable Franklin once had a lot more volcanic material than it's current form, but it has long been eroded away from the high erosion in the region. The GSC states Franklin is highly eroded. Other volcanoes in the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt are like this, including Cayley, which the original volcano has been destroyed by prolonged erosion. BT (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hickson has created a map of the Cascade Arc with Silverthrone and Franklin on the website here. Also, the activity sheet here has a chart with volcanic rocks and their formation. Andesitic and rhyolitic magmas occur at converging ocean-continental plates. Silverthrone and Franklin have erupted andesite and rhyolite magmas per GSC.[5][6] It seems like the only issue with Silverthrone and Franklin is the current plate configuration and rate of subduction, but based on chemistry is very clear Silverthrone and Franklin are subduction-related. I know there are sources that state the Explorer Plate is no longer subducting, but how do they know for sure? The website with Silverthrone and Franklin in the Casacde Arc [7] shows arrows pointing the directions of plate movement and the Explorer and North American plates are colliding at the Cascadia subduction zone. The North American Plate is moving west and the Pacific Plate is moving northwest, so the Explorer Plate is most likely locked between those two tectonic plates.[8] Also, if the Explorer Plate isn't subducting under North America, I doubt the Explorer Ridge would exist because mid-ocean ridges form when tectonic plates pull apart. USGS states the same: "Divergent boundaries occur along spreading centers where plates are moving apart and new crust is created by magma pushing up from the mantle."[9] The Pacific Plate is moving northwest so the western side of the Explorer Ridge is moving northwest as well.[10] And the eastern side of the Explorer Ridge (i.e. the Explorer Plate) is most likely moving eastwards towards North America.[11] If the Explorer Ridge were to move in the same direction as the North American Plate, it would likely be a transform fault plate boundary like the Queen Charlotte Fault on the coast because if the Explorer Plate is locked with the North American Plate, it would be moving with the westward movement of the North American and Pacific plates. It's complex geology and the region these tectonics are located in is not well-studied. The Explorer Plate is obviously not moving south because there is a transform boundary between the Juan de Fuca and Explorer plates called the Nootka Fault.[12] But if it's moving east or northwards, it would be subducting under North America like it shows here to support magmatism in the Silverthrone and Franklin areas. In the book Geology and Geological Hazards of the Vanvouver Region, Southwestern British Columbia, there a map of the entire Cascade Volcanic Arc with the Cascadia subduction zone extending from Lassen to the Silverthrone area on page 233 and it suggests that the Explorer Plate is subducting under the Silverthrone/Franklin area. I would like to see some sources as to why scientists think the Explorer Plate is not subducting. I see it extremely doubtful. BT (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You keep saying that they are definitely part of the Cascade arc, and tell me to "Take a look at some sources about Silverthrone and Franklin." Where are your reliable sources to support your claim? Please give me links, and not to some map which doesn't even name those volcanoes, like this ref which you have presented before [13]. That ref is not useful, it has no mention of Silverthrone or Franklin by name, and no mention of origin due to Cascadia subduction. That map does not meet the standard for being a reliable source. Please try to find some text (a published scientific paper is best, or otherwise online at GSC or USGS) that states for certain that they are part of the Cascades arc.

In contrast, I can find many sources from both USGS and GSC which state that the issue is in doubt.

Here is a very nice 136 page paper which you should really read: Quaternary Magmatism in the Cascades, USGS Professional Paper 1744. It's the first (and thus far only) published scientific paper that attempts to delineate the full extent of the Cascade arc, plus count the number of volcanic vents and centers. Download the large PDF file and see the map on page 2 (fig 1), which clearly excludes Silverthrone and Franklin. And read this quote from page 4 (the rest of the paper is very much worth reading too, if you really want to learn about the extent of volcanism along the Cascade arc during the last 2 million years):

Quaternary volcanoes of the “Cascade magmatic arc” are distributed from southwestern British Columbia to northern California (50.9° to 40.3°N), specifically from ~30 km north of Mount Meager to ~25 km south of Lassen Peak (fig. 1). The Garibaldi Volcanic Belt (Mount Meager to Glacier Peak) is thus included, but the sketchily known Franklin Glacier and Silverthrone volcanic fields (Green and others, 1988), far to the northwest and ambiguous in their affinity, are not.

The Geological Survey of Canada agrees with that too. It says this about Silverthrone: "Its affinity is unclear because it has been only minimally studied." [14] and this about Franklin: "Its tectonic affinity is unclear because it has been only minimally studied." [15] In each sentence, "affinity" refers to whether it is part of the Garibaldi Belt and caused by the present Cascadia Subduction Zone or not. So clearly, the GSC doesn't know the answer for sure yet. Cathernie Hickson may feel that they are part of the Cascade arc, but as far as I know, she has not published anything which states that definitively. If she has, please provide links to the refs.

See my statement above about Silverthrone and Franklin being part of the Cascade Arc. It's the chemistry and location I'm refering to. BT (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You like to frame this along American vs Canadian lines, but that is not so and there is no need to do so. Volcanologists in both countries, USGS and GSC, appear to agree that the affinity of Silverthrone/Franklin is unclear and ambiguous. That means that they might not be part of the Cascade arc. So neither Silverthrone nor Franklin really should be included in the template or List of Cascade volcanoes or articles about Cascade volcanoes/arc. If they are included, they should be italicized and footnoted with a note that their status and origin is in doubt. Anything else fails to comply with WP:NPOV, and is not proper.

I hope you will reconsider your strong personal position in light of the published facts. Unless you can find published references to support your position, it is simply not defensible or correct. --Seattle Skier (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, I'm not talking about governmental agencies like GSC and USGS (I certainly agree there is no need to frame that). I'm actually refering to the public. But I don't have anything that state it as such. I just know in person that the Cascade Arc can be mistaken for just lying in the United States. And again you are missing my point about Silverthrone and Franklin. I never said I have a source that states Silverthrone and Franklin are subduction-related. I'm basing it on their chemistry and location, both of which can be found on the GSC website. BT (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I'm looking to expand Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) to an FA level. It needs a copyedit and more info, first, though. Any suggestions? If you find anything feel free to add it to the article or tell me. btw, good luck with the Milbanke Sound Group. :) Thanks, ceranthor 17:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Milbanke Sound Group is something I have given up for now. I am currently collecting information to expand the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt article because it needs a total rewrite, expansion and better structuring for bringing it up like the 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes. However, there has been a ridiculous problem with this expansion recently (see above) because of the geological problems with Silverthrone Caldera and Franklin Glacier Volcano. The Geological Survey of Canada classifies the two volcanoes as part of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, which is the Canadian portion of the subduction-related Cascade Volcanic Arc, but the above discussion gives it as uncertain.....If the two volcanoes are part of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, they are part of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. If the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt is the Canadian portion of the Cascade Volcanic Arc in the United States, the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt is the northern part of the Cascade Volcanic Arc, just like the Geological Survey of Canada states it as. This clearly suggests Silverthrone and Franklin are considered part of the Cascade Arc, yet the discussion above trys to dispute it just because the tectonics are not well-understood in the region. But even if the tectonics are not well understood, there is evidence these two volcanoes are subduction-related just by the rock composition of them.

As for Cerro Azul, I don't know. With the current work and problems I mentioned, I'm puzzled. BT (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Review

Hey, could you look over Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) and maybe give me some feedback? It's currently at FAC, and it could use some more feedback! Thanks, ceranthor 00:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Garibaldi Volcanic Belt

On April 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Volcanoes_by_Volcanic_Explosivity_Index

Hi Black Tusk,

Did u see it? (Iron Man 2 (soundtrack)) I assume you have an interest in Volcanic Explosivity Index. You may be interested in contributing at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_22#Category:Volcanoes_by_Volcanic_Explosivity_Index. Could you comment on this? It is User:94.196.237.72's idea, his only contribution :s --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have already commented. BT (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I think we should make this formal. It would really be great if we could get all the Major Cascades volcano articles to GA - or even get ALL of them to GA. I haven't seen you around lately, but I hope you're interested! ceranthor 11:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm interest for sure. It has been an area I have been working on lately. I did a total rewrite and expansion on the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt article on April 6, but I suppose it's closer to FA than GA. BT (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - New England hotspot

Your edit summary: "the New England hotspot lies at the African Plate not the North American Plate"

Quote: "The New England seamounts mark the most striking and best dated track in the North Atlantic. Their ages range in a linear fashion from ~100 Ma near the coast and to ~80 Ma farthest from the coast. The on-land early-extension of this track crosses the White Mountains of New Hampshire, the volcanics of the Monteregian Hills, and northwestward into the Canadian Shield west of Hudson Bay. Seaward, a less-clear continuation goes to Corner Rise. East of that, the projected age of the track is younger than the age of the seafloor on the North American side – the track then appears on the African side of the mid-ocean rift as the Great Meteor track (present-day center at 29.4°N, 29.2°W)" --Chris.urs-o (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The New England and Great Meteor hotspots are the same thing. They are just different names that come from different features within its track. Check this out. It states: In the Atlantic, one of the longest hot spot tracks is the Great Meteor, or New England hot spot, located at 28ºW, 33ºN. BT (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, The hotspot is on the mid-Atlantc rift, and there is one chain East (New England) and one chain West (Great Meteor), as in Iceland. See: New England Seamount chain, image:NE seamounts.jpg --Chris.urs-o (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It has created the magma intrusions of the White Mountains in New Hampshire, the New England seamounts and seamounts in the Great Meteor seamount chain. More from here: Finally, between 100 and 80 million years ago, the hot spot formed the New England seamount chain. Bear Seamount—the oldest—formed about 100 to 103 million years ago. Moving southeasterly along the chain, the seamounts get progressively younger, with the Nashville Seamount being about 83 million years old. During the formation of the New England Seamount chain, the oceanic crust (itself only 120 to 80 million years old) pushes over the hot spot at a rate of about 4.7 cm per year. Finally, 80 million years ago, the mid-Atlantic Ridge migrated to the west over the plume. The track of this hot spot then continues on the African Plate and is found today at the Great Meteor Seamount. So what do you disagree with? There is no reason to have separate articles on the same hotspot with two different names. It can easily be New England/Great Meteor hotspot. BT (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Great Meteor track is NOT just on the African Plate if that is what your disagreeing with. The entire hotspot track has different names. It can be Great Meteor hotspot track or New England hotspot track. From here, it states "The 115-140 Ma Great Meteor hotspot track in eastern North America is delineated by mantle-derived igneous intrusions of various compositions. The western Quebec seismic zone (WQSZ), a 150-km wide band of mid- crustal seismicity that extends from the Adirondack Highlands into Laurentian uplands of Quebec, is located along a segment of the inferred hotspot track that lacks contemporaneous igneous intrusions. Here, it is proposed that the seismicity in western Quebec is primarily controlled by mafic intrusions that were trapped in the middle crust during the passage of North America over the hotspot. In particular, present-day seismicity may be controlled by focusing of crustal stresses due to large strength contrasts under mid-crustal conditions between mafic intrusive rocks and more felsic host rocks. In addition, the surface expression of the hotspot track is offset to the east of its predicted location, as inferred from plate reconstruction models and seismic tomographic images of the lithospheric mantle. The misalignment is anti-parallel to the direction of North American plate motion and increases with age along the track. We propose that the misalignment reflects lithospheric strain arising from traction at the base of the North American plate. If this hypothesis is correct, basal traction associated with plate motion could exert a significant role in the crustal stress field." It is clear from that paragraph that the term "Great Meteor hotspot track" is also used for the North American portion of the hotspot track. BT (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved discussion to Hotspot (geology) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

YO BLACK TUSK

o/ That weird guy named ResMar 02:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Metavolcanic rock

Hi, Black Tusk. Strictly, metavolcanic rock is not volcanic: it started life as volcanic rock, but then metamorphosed, and recrystallized. The age of the rock is reset when it metamorphoses, so it is no longer volcanic. I removed Category:Volcanic rock from the article. Happy editing! —hike395 (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Says who? It is basically volcanic rock that has undergone metamorphism as termed. From this paper it states The Kanichee layered intrusive complex is the largest of several mafic-ultramafic bodies in felsic and mafic metavolcanic rocks in the northern portion of the Temagami greenstone belt, Ontario. Various aspects of the geology of this volcanic belt have been reported by Bennett (1978), Bennett & Innes (1971a, b), Bennett & McNally (1970a, b), Simony (19il) and Moorhouse (1942). From that paper, it is clear the Temagami greenstone belt is still considered a volcanic belt (i.e. made of volcanic rocks), even though it is metamorphosed. BT (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And no its age is not reset when it metamorphoses. Its age dates back to whenever the volcanics were erupted and solidifed. The page here states The Archean Sturgeon Lake Caldera Complex (SLCC) comprises a well-preserved, north-facing homoclinal sequence of greenschist facies metamorphosed intrusive, volcanic, and sedimentary strata. Thus, it comprises metamorphosed intrusive, volcanic and sedimentary rocks. If the age of volcanic rocks was reset due to metamorphism it would not be possible to know when the volcano or volcanic rocks formed. The papers here state that ash flow tuff deposits and late caldera margin dome lavas of the Sturgeon Lake Caldera yield an age of 2,735 m.y. ± 1.5 my (Davis et aI., 1985). BT (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC) The Yellowknife Volcanic Belt is

Let's ask for some second/third opinions. I'll ask some WikiGeologists that I know, and point them here. —hike395 (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I could find two references that state the Temagami greenstone belt as the Temagami Volcanic Belt,[16][17] the Yellowknife Volcanic Belt (a.k.a Yellowknife Greenstone Belt) as a greenstone belt,[18], the Abitibi greenstone belt as the Abitibi Volcanic Belt[19], the Flin Flon greenstone belt as the Flin Flon Volcanic Belt[20], the Hope Bay greenstone belt as the Hope Bay Volcanic Belt[21] and I could go on. BT (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, I just found other (but less common) terms that I did not think of before: the Temagami greenstone belt as the Temagami metavolcanic belt,[22], the Hope Bay greenstone belt as the Hope Bay metavolcanic belt,[23], the Flin Flon greenstone belt as the Flin Flon metavolcanic belt[24]. BT (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Black Tusk here, especially for greenschist grade metamorphism. If the origin of the rock was volcanic then it fits the category. Would get iffy for high grade metamorphosed rock where the origin is questionable, but then it wouldn't be called metavolcanic. Just my 2 cents - seems BT has the refs to support. Vsmith (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be kept it in the "volcanic category". While a metavolcanic rock is a dictionary-definition metamorphic rock, in quite a bit (most?) research I have read involving metavolcanics, the "volcanics" part is very important. (Often they're trying to figure out what happened at a plate boundary with subduction-zone volcanoes, or something like this.) So being in both categories is helpful. Awickert (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree that using both categories makes sense, just as Metasediment is in both the Sedimentary rocks and Metamorphic rocks categories. Mikenorton (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The same thing goes for metasedimentary and metaplutonic rocks, but there arn't any articles for those terms as far as I'm aware of. The closest term to metasedimentary that has an article is metasediment, which includes Category:Sedimentary rocks as well. Stating metavolcanic rock is no longer volcanic just because it is metamorphosed is a putdown for lots of volcanics, including those that formed in the Precambrian since lots of Precambrian volcanics are metamorphosed. Also, if volcanic rocks were not considered volcanic after metamorphism, any volcanoes that formed prior to metamorphism and still exist to this day would likely not be a considered a volcano because its volcanics would be metamorphosed. BT (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Metamorphic or volcanic are not value judgments --- calling something a metamorphic rock is not a "putdown". However, I yield to the consensus. —hike395 (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I ment. What I ment was saying metavolcanic rock is not volcanic just because it is metamorphosed is not true and doing so is like avoiding different forms of volcanic rock. BT (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)