User talk:Volcanoguy/Archive 5

Skookum Volcano

Sounds like me when I'm in a bad mood, but see User_talk:Skookum1#.247.2_M--in_gold.3F.Skookum1 (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Garibaldi Volcanic Belt

Hi Black Tusk. I ran out of time today to work on the article; hopefully I'll get a chance tomorrow to delve in deeper. Sorry in general for taking so long to get around to this, and I wanted to thank you for your immense patience. As far as current work goes: this is just something that takes some real thought and learning on my part, so I can't do it unless I can devote a significant chunk of time in one sitting. The article overall looks very good. If the rest is as good as what I've read so far, I bet you'll have no problem bringing it through FAC, and you'll have an immediate vote of support from me.

Again, thanks for your patience. Awickert (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. While sitting back I have been creating articles (e.g. Central Pangean Mountains) and collecting information for the Mount Cayley volcanic field, which currently does not have an article. When I am done collecting information and sources, I will create an article for it. The Cayley field is the central segment of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt and is already 54 kilobytes long in my database. It should be just as nice as the Garibaldi Belt article. When its posted I will add the main article template in the central segment portion of the Garibaldi Belt article so other users will know there is an article for the central segment of the Garibaldi Belt and I will link Mount Cayley volcanic field in other related articles (e.g. Mount Cayley, Ring Mountain, Little Ring Mountain, Ember Ridge, Mount Fee, Mount Brew, Pali Dome, Cauldron Dome). BT (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad you've kept busy: I've watchlisted Central Pangean Mountains. After midnight here and getting up early for the field tomorrow. Will be in lab Friday, gone this weekend. Next week, I should be able to do this... will have quite a bit of downtime in lab, and will have only my laptop, so less access to real work. Awickert (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I always have something do to for Wikipedia ;-). Just finished gathering information and sources to create the Mount Cayley volcanic field article. Now I shall start gathering to create an article for the Squamish volcanic field at the southern end of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. BT (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sustut volcanics

See Talk:Sustut Provincial Park and Protected Area.Skookum1 (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied. Starting to gather information to create an article for large magmatic events across Canada extending from the Precambrian period to a few thousand years ago. There is at least one event no smaller than 2,700,000 km² (1,000,000 sq mi) that covers portions of Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan! Massive stuff. 49 large events listed so far. BT (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Template boycott

FYI follow the TfD link from Plastikspork's post on my talkpage and see my comments on his talkpage and on [[User:Droll]'s. I'm boycotting all geo-db templates (BCGNIS, CGNDB, GNIS) now because of the way this was done, and the needless extra work the code-obsessed make for those of us actually using templates; I've made series of articles tonight that didnt' use them, and if I'd used them the way they want me to it would have taken twice as long...none of them actually write articles, and other than RedWolf who's in the discussion because of a notice at WPCanGeog, none of them write geographic articles or actually use the templates. So I'm just boycotting them altogether from now on...messy looking but it's a "statement" and saves me a lot of time that I can better waste in real life than jumping hoops for admins and code-nerds who want to tweak the interface all the time without actually contributing material....Skookum1 (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		Black Tusk: you write articles relating to volcanology and volcanism in Canada with fantastic factual accuracy and keen determination, and at an incredible pace. You deserve quite a bit more than this little picture of a star with schematic electrons zipping around it, but hopefully it will do something to convey my appreciation of your work. You are spectacular. Awickert (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess you could say that :-). BT (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Nipissing sills

Nipissing sills Thanks for doing work on the Nipissing sills article. It is not too often I see WP users working on articles related to Canadian volcanism apart from myself :-). BT (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome!! It appears that I will only get the article from a stub status to a start. I am visiting Vancouver from Minnesota and thought I'd be able to access some Canadian sites here that I'm able to at home. So far I haven't. I live about 100 miles from the Canadian border on Lake Superior. A lot of our geology is interrelated.Bettymnz4 (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you for taking care of the wikilinking for me!! That's one of my last steps as I write an article, or try to do substantial work on it (a task I'd rather not perform!!) I do sincerely thank you for that. I do believe I've done as much as I'm going to on this article. I'm going to try to do an article on the Nor-Wester Mountains of Thunder Bay next. We flew out of Thunder Bay to Vancouver on WestJet - very nice experience!!Bettymnz4 (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You are right about that much of U.S. geology is interrelated with Canadian geology. Its a shame that lots of articles about Canadian geology do not get the attention they diserve.....Volcanism is a massive piece of it that easily gets unnoticed. I have created and expanded several of them since I became a user on Wikipedia, the most recenr major expansion and article creation would be the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt and the Mount Cayley volcanic field in southwestern British Columbia, which are both linked to subduction zone magmatism in the western United States. Another subject that could use some expanding is the massive Mackenzie Large Igneous Province, which is likely linked the Midcontinent Rift System event. I have information that needs to be posted in its article, but I have not had time to do that. BT (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep the Mackenzie LIP in mind, in relation to the Midcontinent Rift. I live right on Lake Superior so I am familiar with the rift, but hadn't paid attention to the Makenzie. I have a couple of other things I want to address before I look at this. One of them is to look at the rift article to see how comprehensive it is. (Sigh, so many articles, so little time.;) )Bettymnz4 (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good. According to the Continential tectonics book here on page 180 it states "Apparently slightly younger but possibly related to the Mackenzie dikes is the extensive intracontinental rift system of the Keweenawan", which is apparently the Midcontinental Rift System. I added that statement into the Midcontinental Rift System article quite awhile ago as "A slightly older but possibly related geologic feature is the 2,700,000 km² (1,000,000 sq mi) Mackenzie Large Igneous Province in Canada, which extends from the Arctic in Nunavut to near the Great Lakes in Northwestern Ontario.", since the Mackenzie dikes form part of the Mackenzie LIP. The Midcontental Rift System and the Mackenzie LIP are considered to have had mantle plume volcanism. When I first found out about the Mackenzie LIP it just blew my mind away LOL. It is so volumnous. Flood basalts in the province cover a volume of about 650,000 km³ (160,000 cu mi)..... BT (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Just posted the information I wanted to recreate the Mackenzie Large Igneous Province article with. BT (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nor'Wester Mountains

I wrote an article on the Nor'Wester Mountains. I expected to find a LOT of information on Google Scholar, but didn't. I ranked this as a start article of low importance in the WikiProject Geology. Please feel free to add the Canadian references.Bettymnz4 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I know anything about these mountains. The only thing that comes in mind is Mount McKay. BT (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Went ahead and did a copyedit anyway. BT (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mackenzie Large Igneous Province

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Volcano (British Columbia)

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Nain province

I just moved Nain province from my user page to Wikipedia. I wasn't able to find a lot of information on this, so rated it a start of mid importance. There is much more information on Nain Plutonic Suite, but that is not part of the Nain province. Anyway, you are more than welcome to go into the page to modify it as you wish, add categories, wikiprojects, etc. Bettymnz4 (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Volcanism of Canada

I'm very disappointed to see that the only people who write articles about volcanoes are Canadian, though. Canada is a country where there hasn't been an eruption since before the American Revolution, and yet it has 38.5 times the article-space as Indonesia, Iceland, and the United States COMBINED! This is an inexcusable situation and something needs to be done.

I'm very disappointed to see that someone would say such a thing. More than 90% of Canadian volcanism is my work, not several wiki users. And I am the main specialist of Canadian volcanism on Wikipedia. The last eruption in Canada did not occur in the 1700s. The latest occured in the 1800s or maybe the early 1900s. In addition, there are several undated volcanics in Canada, so there likely has been eruptions in Canada after the formation of Canada and the United States. And If you have a problem with Canada having more information about volcanism than anywhere else, fix it, that is what I did with Canada. Before I started creating articles and expanding them, Canada likely have lower volcanological content than the United States, Iceland, Indonesia etc. And even if the U.S. and other countries had more volcanological content, I bet Canada would still have the chance of containing more content and articles because Canada is a larger country than the United States, Iceland and Indonesia. I'm also plaining to create another subpage for the Volcanism of Canada article like I did for Northern, Eastern and Western Canada. So tough. BT (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Them is fightin' words!

Actually, I found your articles to be very interesting and informative. I'm kind of a Wikaddict, and I love jumping around from one article to another, especially when I have a lot of time on my hands. I find that time and time again, articles about Canada and things Canadian are more extensive and informative than articles about the United States and other (in my opinion) more significant places. Canadian editors should rightfully be very proud of this. You imply, and I agree, that non-Canadian articles should be brought up to the level of articles about Canada.

However, I think if aliens were to only have access to Wikipedia as their basis to analyze us (as opposed to monitoring our mass media and the occasional abduction), they would conclude that Canada was by far the most important place on earth. They would wonder why the U.N. was headquartered in New York and not Toronto. They would be baffled as to why athletes played soccer at the World Cup rather than hockey. And thanks to you, they would be forgiven if, in an attempt to witness a volcano, they flew their UFOs over Hazelton, British Columbia rather than Hawaii or Krakatoa... I got my information about the latest Canadian eruption from a Canadian Government website. --Antigrandiose (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Well, just to know there are a lot more websites that have Canadian volcanoes other than Natural Resources Canada. The Global Volcanism Program website has a page on the Iskut-Unuk River Cones that states the last eruption occured in 1800 with a question mark in brackets beside it [1]. But if you look at the volcanic history page there is an uncertain eruption that occured in 1904 [2]. There are other cones in British Columbia that are considered to have formed in the past 10,000 years just because they have little erosion. If they formed before 10,000 years ago they would have been eroded by glacial ice from the last glacial period. The Milbanke Sound Group cones are an example and the cones themselves remain undated. The Lava Fork vent in the Iskut-Unuk River Cones group is younger than the Tseax Cone eruption that occurred in the 18th century. According to Natural Resources Canada, the Lava Fork volcano is the youngest known volcano in Canada [3]. According to your user page, you seem to think that Canada's volcanoes are extinct likely because most have not erupted for hundreds or thousands of years. Lots of Canada's volcanoes are not extinct. It does not matter how often they erupt or how long they remain quiet. All volcanoes have their own function. There are more than 200 potentially active volcanoes in Canada [4]. The stratovolcano of Mount Cayley has not erupted for about 350,000 years, but it is clear that it is not extinct due to the existence of hot springs and seismic activity. I would not be surprised if Cayley or some other volcano had an upcomming eruption after a period of long-term dormancy and was not dectected due to the lack of volcano monitoring. An eruption from Cayley would likely destroy everything in the Squamish and Cheakamus river valleys, especially Highway 99. BT (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well first of all I didn’t mean to imply that I thought Canadian volcanoes were extinct, although they do seem to be shy volcanoes, unwilling to erupt when anyone’s watching. The point of that section is just to highlight the fact that either Canadian editors are a little over-enthusiastic or the rest of the world has a lot of catching up to do as far as writing articles about their volcanoes. (That isn’t meant to be a criticism of you or your extensive efforts which are commendable). I shouldn’t say this, but I was just erupting in admiration during the three days that it took me to read your Volcanism of Canada article. You’re kind of the Leo Tolstoy of Canadian volcanism. You really need to think about taking a sabbatical, maybe hop in your car and take a road trip south, and helping your wikitarded neighbors out in writing an article about Volcanism of the United States. Americans don’t seem to be as gung-ho when it comes to editing Wikipedia as Canadians are. I don’t know if that’s a good or a bad thing.

Also, I’d like to take back that whole alien thing that I wrote about earlier. I think aliens would probably enjoy flying over Canada. (OK this is too easy): At least they wouldn’t have to worry about getting volcanic ash in their warp drives! Lol. Sorry. At least they’d be safe. I think if they flew over my home town they’d probably get shot down or something. --Antigrandiose (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all the main reasons I do not have major contributions to American volcano articles is because I do not know too much about them and it is not a high interest of mine. So I am not the person do to the work. In fact, there are more Americans that edit volcano articles than Canadians. I am the only Canadian user on Wikipedia that works on Canadian volcanism-related articles while there are many more Americans that expand and create volcanology articles, including User:Resident Mario, User:Ceranthor and User:Mav. All three users have improved volcano articles right up to featured article class, which are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia. The most important volcano articles relating to American volcanism I created are the Hawaii hotspot, Yellowstone hotspot and Cascade Volcanoes, but all three of those articles have been expanded and reworked since I created them, especially the Hawaii (which was greatly expanded by User:Resident Mario) and Yellowstone hotspots which were stubs. Most recently, I have created articles for the two volcanoes comprising the island of Molokai in Hawaii (Mauna Loa and Wailau) in June. Sometime in February I had a bit of an argument with a "Wiki-cop" from Seattle about Cascade volcanoes, stating that I should undo weight on Template:Cascade volcanoes and List of Cascade volcanoes because most of the Cascades are located in the United States and not Canada. But guess what? I did not give a rats ass what he said and I still wouldn't if he comes back mouthing off at me again. I will edit whatever I feel like editing and I do not care if it is associated with undo weight or not. I have been against this asshole since he called me a high school kid in 2007. If he has a problem with how I edit then he can deal with it without interrupting my editing. I do not follow or care about Wikipedia guide lines, rules and other bullshit. Good for him if he choses to follow that shit but not everybody does. Maybe he should try expanding and creating volcano articles insted of bitching at other Wikipedia users about it. That way there would be more info and articles about American volcanism. Bitching and doing nothing gets people no where, and I know form my personal experience. As I put more effort in Canadian volcanism topics it gradually grew and got more inclusive. At one time, Canada was one of the pourer countries on Wikipedia that had volcanology articles and content, but look at it now, Canada is one of the kings (if not the king) on Wikipedia with volcanological content. It takes time and strength to get crap together like I did for Canada, especially for a single user doing most of the work. BT (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

BT can edit whatever he wants, and if other editors want to step up and add more info on other articles, they can. As I have found, a great way to get burnt out is by doing things that you aren't interested in. We just have to wait and hope for an Icelandic or Indonesian en.wikipedian who brings those articles up to the high standards that BT has set. Awickert (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually remain a bit surprised that many world famous volcanoes do not contain the content they should have. I'm pretty sure there was an Indonesian user on WP a few years ago that did work on Indonesian volcano articles, but I do not know if he/she is still active. List of volcanoes in Indonesia was probably brought up to FL status by the same user. As you can see, I can get a bit crossed when I get into discussions like the one that took place on my talk page in January. But I did not use curse language of course like here. No wonder where I get my WP:DGAF attitude from. The administrator I had an argument with in February probably does not even know I have been against him since 2007, unless he has already read the above..... Volcanoguy 21:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW Awickert for your information, I am starting to gather information to create an article related to Meager's most recent eruption 2,350 years ago with a good start for FAC, as well as for the Temagami greenstone belt and the Kanichee layered intrusive complex mentioned below. Volcanoguy 23:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. As usual, don't know when I'll find time, but somehow I will. If they are anywhere near the quality of The Volcano, you don't even need to pass them by me. I'll do a FAC review when you bring them to FAC.

Per WP:DGAF, no reason for you to listen to someone who tries to tell you what to do here. Got to follow your own interests. Happy editing!

Oh - by the way - if you ever need to get in touch with me quickly about something and I don't seem to be checking WP (might be the case in the next few weeks), send an email. If I don't reply to THAT, then I'm probably in the field. Awickert (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. The article related to Meager I am plaining to create is the volcanic crater on its northeastern flank that was the source for its most recent eruption. It will likely have a similar structure to The Volcano article but a bit longer. The expansion of the Temagami belt will include not only volcanological info but also mineralization, mining, folds and deformation zones. As for the Kanichee intrusion, I still have to get details to add into the article. I know where the Kanichee Mine is located, but I do not have professional knowledge about the area's geology. So getting pics for the intrusion may take time. Volcanoguy 17:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK - good luck with all that! If there is anything I can help with, drop me a line, and I will if I can. Awickert (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The Mount Cayley volcanic field is at FAC. I have never been so energetic with FACs before! More than three this year, two with success. At first I thought I would never have the opportunity to bring articles to FA-class :-O. Volcanoguy 04:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Changes I'd like to make to Template:Infobox mountain

I've got a whole list of changes I'd like to make to the template on the discussion page. Since you are an active editing mountain articles, your thoughts would be appreciated. –droll [chat] 09:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Puyehue volcano

Woluld you mind to review the Puyehue-Cordón Caulle article for GA status here, if you have time. Dentren | ^Talk 04:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am generally busy doing projects and research for Canadian volcanism-related topics (my most important volcanological topic on Wikipedia), so I probably wouldn't be able to. BT (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!

Saw the article passed - great work! Would you like to collaborate on an article sometime? I know you're super busy with all the VOC articles so just give me a shout out if you're interested. ceranthor 13:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't say I am super busy with all of them, but I would sure participate in bringing another one up to FA. Currently doing some research to try and make a large expansion for the Temagami greenstone belt and Kanichee layered intrusive complex articles, but I am not looking forward into bringing them to FA status right now. They would probably be good though because I would be able to take pics of their igneous rocks and mineralization unlike many other volcanism articles I created because I live in the area. BT (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Temagami

You can think anything you want about the Temagami region; the Temagami categories on Wikipedia are for the town, because we categorize things by municipality on Wikipedia, not by loosely-defined regions that may lead to disagreements about their boundaries. So the categories are not meant for anything that is not within the municipal boundaries of the town of Temagami, regardless of what else you may or may not perceive as being within the broader region, because an encyclopedia has to be strictly objective and not get into opinion games. Bearcat (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, the next time you want to tell me how frustrated you are with repeated disagreements with me over something, at least try saying it about a discussion that we've actually had. Because this isn't any argument I've ever had with you before. Bearcat (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The category is not ment for just the town that is the thing. I am the creator of it so I know what the purpose of it is. Volcanoguy 09:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What it is basically is a county. There are categories for counties like Category:Bridge River Country, Category:Lillooet Country, Category:Sea to Sky Country. Volcanoguy 09:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You're trying to make one set of categories do two different things at once. It would be perfectly appropriate to have one set of categories for the municipality of Temagami and a separate set of categories for the larger region — but it's not appropriate to have one category for both the municipal entity and the wider area, because then you end up with things getting categorized as being in Nipissing which aren't in Nipissing.

Just to demonstrate the problem, you yourself filed Category:Temagami as a subcategory of Category:Municipalities in Nipissing District, Ontario — so, by definition, anything in that category has to pertain specifically to the municipality precisely because that's how you categorized it in the first place. And that's why the region needs to be dealt with separately: because things that are in Timiskaming are not part of a municipality in Nipissing. They may be part of an informal and unincorporated region which straddles Nipissing and Timiskaming, but by virtue of how you set up the category in the first place, you're asserting that they're subtopics of a municipality in Nipissing — and that completely contradicts your own stated intentions.

And by the way, the definition of a "county" inherently requires that the provincial government has actually set up an actual county with an actual county government and actual county boundaries; Temagami has never had anything like that status. Bearcat (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I am mixed up right now. The reason I added Category:Municipalities in Nipissing District, Ontario to Category:Temagami is because Temagami is a municipality in Nipissing District. But it also partly lies in Timiskaming District, which is why I added the Timiskaming cats. Have a look here. It states "Temagami: Scandia Inn, Hwy. 11 POH 2H0. Tel: 705/569-3644." The Scandia Inn lies in Timiskaming District and the postal code (POH 2H0) and phone address (705/569-3644) is Temagami. Thus, this is evidence the municipality of Temagami extends into Timiskaming District. You have not shown any reliable sources that state or show evidence that Temagami is located only in Nipissing District. Just your opinions, which are not reliable. I have shown you several papers and websites that state Temagami lies in both Nipissing and Timiskaming districts. Volcanoguy 12:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A municipality can't cross census division boundaries. Not because I say so, but because the Ontario Municipal Act says so. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing lists Temagami as being in Nipissing. A municipality can't cross a county or district line — if the government wants to add territory on the other side of a divisional boundary to a municipality, it has to actually change where the divisional boundary is before it can do so. See, for example, Killarney and Kearney, both of which incorporate areas that were switched from one division to another before they were annexed.

And the fact that a building is given the address of the nearest actual town doesn't necessarily prove that it's in that municipality, either; neither addresses nor phone numbers necessarily have any particular correspondence to municipal boundaries. In actual fact, the moment you cross the line between Nipissing and Timiskaming, you've stepped out of the municipality of Temagami and into the municipality of Latchford; the fact that Bell Canada happens to run one particular hotel's phone line to the Temagami switching office instead of the Latchford switching office doesn't have any bearing on where the legal boundaries of the municipality are, because the boundaries are decided by the provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, not by the phone company.

You could stand to learn a lot more about how municipal government actually works in Ontario if you think a phone book listing trumps government references on a question of law. The Temagami region can certainly cross into Timiskaming, because regions are just areas that have a common name and history, and aren't defined by provincial law — but the legal boundaries of the municipality of Temagami end at the line between the two districts, because provincial law explicitly dictates where the jurisdiction of a municipal government begins and ends. Places like Estaire and Cartier and Markstay and Hagar, for example, are every bit as much a part of the Sudbury area as the Ishpatina Ridge is part of Temagami — but they're not categorized as being in Sudbury, because they're outside the legal boundaries of the city. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for the hell of it I removed the towns and municipalities cats from Category:Temagami and added them on the Temagami page to solve this problem. I replaced those cats with Category:Geographic regions of Ontario if that is better. Volcanoguy 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Volcano nominations

The Hawaii list is back on FLC again, and doing well, and the volcano portal is on the chopping block as well. Just a friendly heads up, sorry for the late notice. ...I kinda liked Black Tusk better, it had a nice ring to it :/ Hey, maybe I should rename myself after a volcano! *brilliant idea* ResMar 03:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh and I've been hard at work at Seamount for a while now :) ResMar 01:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice. I have been collecting information to expand the Temagami greenstone belt and Kanichee layered intrusive complex articles and to create an article related to Mount Meager. Volcanoguy 02:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As for my former name (Black Tusk), it was only a fill in that never got changed as stated on my user page. It was always awkward to me. Volcanoguy 05:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Made me think of elephants :) I've got work to the horizon at this point. I forsee two GANs, two FCs, at least 6 DYKs...and every time I come to this page, I think of writing something Canadian, then I look for sources and deflate :/ I think I got to start bothering Dabomb for JSTOR again :) ResMar 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW the Mount Cayley volcanic field is a featureed article candidate. Volcanoguy' 20:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I can get to reviewing it. ResMar 14:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok done. ResMar 22:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Newberry shield volcano/Yellowstone hotspot

Ok, many volcanoes in the Cascade Range are stratovolcanoes. Check the pages: 28, 50 and 51. Newberry system is from 16 Ma until now. If I got it right. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand the cited source too well. The Yellowstone hotspot currently lies under the Yellowstone Caldera, which is no where near Newberry Volcano. Just because it is a shield volcano dosen't mean it was formed a hotspot. They are also known to form at subduction and rift zones. The Level Mountain Range in northwestern British Columbia, Canada is a good example of a shield volcano like Newberry. The oldest known rocks are about 16 million years old and has shown relatively recent volcanic activity. No hotspot is known to be responsible for its creation. Same thing for the Mount Edziza volcanic complex; began to form about 8 million years ago and continues to be active to this day. I am sure you know the cycle with hotspot volcanoes; every individual hotspot volcano erupts for at least a few million years before it gets pulled away from its magma source. Here, it states "Ash-flow tuffs from Newberry Volcano, located ~50 km east of the Cascade axis, provide insight into the evolution of a subduction-related, rear-arc continental magma system." So what they are basically stating is the Newberry Volcano contains a subduction-related, rear-arc continental magma system, which makes a lot more sense than it being a hotspot volcano. Volcanoguy 19:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Enough reverts on Newberry Volcano please! It's time to discuss and reach consensus at the article's talk page. —EncMstr (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Check the images on the pages. It is the residuum of the Yellowstone hotspot plume, subduction counterflow of the subduction. I think Prof. Schmidt (2009) is a better source (Dr. Robert Smith - University of Utah Coordinating Scientist for Yellowstone Volcanic Observatory). You asked for a ref, and I remmembered that one is available. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. I am not going to argue about it. If that is what it is then it should be reworded so it doesn't sound like its mainly associated with the Yellowstone hotspot. Newberry Volcano is also described as a Cascade volcano here, as well as the Medicine Lake shield. Volcanoguy 01:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the formulation used where was "appear", nothing for sure, quite open. The figures on the paper are based on earthquake wave reflections, so they'd be based on facts. I'd prefer to believe that Newberry is mainly associated with the Yellowstone hotspot. It is wandering eastwards since 10 Ma. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW what the hell is with your emotions EncMstr? Do you think I care if an edit war starts or has already started on an article? No I would not and I never have. This may be against WP:EW, but I sure as hell do not give a fuck. If you do not know what don't give a fuck means, I suggest you learn. It's a phrase meaning don't care. There is a policy for ignoring all rules and this is one of the few policies I tend to follow because it is something someone would do if they do not give a fuck for something. If you tend to care about Wikipedia and its rules and other bullshit, good for you. But you do not need to spread it into my talk page because I do not give a fuck for it. I edit Wikipedia mainly as a hobby and to increase knowledge in my areas of interest. That's it. The other stuff can fuck off. Another reason I do not give a fuck for those that spread Wikipedia's policies and other crap to users is because it makes them look like a cop. I HATE cops. They are annoying as hell, especially when it comes to laws, rules and other crap. I live a free life, not one that is controlled by laws and rules. How? I ignore anyone/anything that tells me I can't do this, don't do that, blah, blah, blah. I am better off just to tell them to shut the fuck up and piss off. Yes, I am generally not very friendy with anyone that tend to play stupid or try to control me. Volcanoguy 06:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Built up Peace & Love. Do not destroy through war. Do not listen to war mongers that want to destroy you, your family and your world ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL yup. Volcanoguy 09:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Put into perspective...

I always knew that Canadian volcanism hasn't produced anything in a while, but this really put it in perspective for me: "Canada has one historically active volcano, Tseax cone; its 1775 eruption killed an estimated 2000 Nisga’a First Nations people." ResMar 21:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That statement is not entirely true as far as I am aware of. The Lava Fork volcano north of Tseax has erupted more recently; sometime in the 1800s or possibly in the early 1900s. In addition, lots of volcanics remain undated in BC. The Milbanke Sound Group along the BC Coast is undated, there has been at least two eruptions at the Mount Edziza volcanic complex in the past 1,300 years (the last of which was probably only 400 years ago) and the age of the most recent eruption at the Silverthrone Caldera is not necessarily known, although it does appear to be younger than 1,000 years. So all what I can say is the data you found is probably just historical erupions that are known to have truely taken place and have been successfully dated. The reason there is several undated volcanics is partly because most of BC's volcanoes are located in remote areas. I remember reading an 1800s eruption report related to the Atlin Volcanic Field as well, but nobody has found evidence. It was said that miners in the Atlin area were working nights, gladly profiting by the mellow twilight caused by the volcano's glare, which turned night into day. Ruby Mountain was said be the source for the eruption, but more recent studies have shown that it wasn't. But given the location of the mining and the reported location of the volcano about 50 miles north of Gladys Lake, the vent that produced the eruption might be located in the rugged and remote Coast Mountains or southwest of Atlin Lake according to here. Volcanoguy 04:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well it's still not very active either way. Not sure if you should feel blessed that volcanoes in Canada don't erupt that often, or feel cursed because no one really thinks twice about them. Honestly, I think one event and all the monitering problems would suddenly find new avenues of funding (and your articles, new interest) :) ResMar 01:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It dosen't matter to me if a volcano is very active or not. What I find most interesting is the volcanic history, volcanic hazards and future activity. One of the main reasons I started editing Wikipedia was to increase the knowledge of Canadian volcanism and then a year or two later the Geological Survey of Canada contacted me and asked if I am the one expanding the Canadian volcanism articles. Then I said yes. So they thanked me and I have been in contact with them ever since LOL. As for your quote, it is correct, sorry. I got mixed up with the usage of "historic". I am sure natives have witnessed eruptions in Canada other than Tseax, but Tseax is the only volcano in Canada that has been recorded in human history. The Atlin eruption dosen't really count because it has not been proven and the eruption of the Lava Fork volcano was likely not witnessed by anyone. But it is clear that Canada has been more volcanically active than Australia, Iran, Germany, Brazil, Afghanistan, Armenia, Chad, Eritrea, Fiji, France, Georgia, Honduras, Korea, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mongolia, Burma, Nigeria, Poland, Rwanda, Sudan, Syria or Uganda in the past 10,000 years. So it is certainly not one of the countries with the lowest rates in volcanism. Volcanoguy 00:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's really really cool. Being in contact with them is great, you could request offline stuff from them, and pay-per-view papers too :O NOw I understand how you keep it up. ResMar 01:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

According to one of my GSC contacts, they do not have a lot of data for many young Canadian volcanic deposits. Thus, it is tough to estimate the overall frequency of eruption. But they will hopefully get more radiometric dates for young Candian volcanic rocks in the next few years and then they can make better estimates of the frequency of eruption. Volcanoguy 13:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...

I was wondering what you stance is on a possible project interview? It's not like we don't have plenty to say. Just curious :) ResMar 03:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh and FYI. ResMar 16:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What's this about? Volcanoguy 23:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A possible project interview? Just a short Q&A section in the Wikipedia Signpost. It helps bring foward membership and interest in the project. As for the mapping, it just needs better colors, cuz its kind of...gnashy. ResMar 02:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess a project interview would be nice. Don't know what project you are referring to though LOL. Volcanoguy 15:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Volcano project. We can talk about refurbishing the project, the two workgroups, you being in contact with officials, project activity, etc. etc. Ok, as soon as Ceranthor comes up again and agrees I'll list us :) ResMar 15:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've listed us. ResMar 17:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

So are we going to list the workgroups as well or are we just going to discuss them? Hopefully there is a way to draw attention to them. Volcanoguy 01:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the goals isn't it :) ResMar 04:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Small error.

Thought I'd point out that your user page statement "there has probably been more volcanic events in Canada than in the United States because Canada is larger in area" (emphasis added) is dependent on the proposition that the occurrence of volcanic events is proportional to area. But they are actually dependent on prevalence of subduction, and the Canadian shield ("stable craton") works against you. (How many volcanoes or former volcanoes does Ontario have?) Hopefully the Cordillera will suffice. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Learn the geology. And the "stable" Canadian Shield works with me actually. It's not like the shield has always been stable. I have no idea how many volcanoes or former volcanoes are in Ontario, but at least three vents have been suggested to exist where I am, which form part of the Canadian Shield. Several dikes are interpreted to have "fed" volcanic eruptions here too, as well as larger intrusions. The Canadian Shield contains hundreds of deformed volcanic belts, dikes, batholiths, sills and other igneous features that were formed millions of years ago during a variety of geologic processes, such as rifting, subduction, hotspots and back-arc rifting. There are also several dike swarms that cover hundreds of square kilometers. Also, check this out. Just move your arrow over the small vertical bars below the image and should realize that there has been more volcanic events in Canada that created large igneous provinces than in the states. Volcanoguy 00:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's some powerful stuff! ResMar 04:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL well the Canadian landscape does have a long history of volcanism. My knowledge about this stuff is from doing years of research. I am plaining to recreate the article about the feature that contains the volcanic vents, dikes, batholihs and sills in my area (Temagami greenstone belt) once the internet on my computer starts up again. Although ancient stuff (some 2 billion years), I can probably get it as long as the Mount Cayley volcanic field article. There is also more than just volcanism associated this feature; shear/deformation zones, rock alternation, mineralization, mineral explorations and mining are big time stuff as well. It will hopefully be one of the best articles related to the Canadian Shield; currently it's article is relatively small, uncomprehensive and unreferenced compared to the version I am going to recreate it with. All what I have to do before I copy and paste it into its article is make several copyedits, expand some sections (mostly about its mines) and add images. Adding some pics should not be too hard since I know where several of its mines are located along with their mineralization. Since most WP users seem to focus mainly on modern volcanic areas like the Cascades, Hawaii, Yellowstone and the Andes, it will perhaps also be the most detailed, comprehensive volcanism article related to the vast Precambrian eon (about 4500 to 540 million years ago). It will be a meaningful article for Precambrian volcanism that's for sure. Volcanoguy 06:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The more I stick around your page the more I feel Canada's recent inactivity is a fluke :) ResMar 13:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Me too lol. I don't think I would want to be around when the Mackenzie Large Igneous Province formed :) Whenever I think about the history of Canadian volcanism I am always surprised about how much it has done to the landscape and how many igneous features dominate it, especially since its a topic that normally goes unnoticed. And like you said about its recent inactivity being a fluke, what if it comes highly active again like places such as Iceland, Alaska or even Indonesia? There would be eruptions occuring at least every few years. The Coast Range Arc had to have been something else when it was still active given the tectonic environment and the speed of the plate motion at the time. Volcanoguy 17:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Featured Article Medal

		The Featured Article Medal
		Great job...FYI...your wonderful contributions do not go unnoticed - keep up the outstanding work Moxy (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't referring to my contributions as going unnoticed in the discussion above, I ment the topic itself :) Canada is a country where relatively few volcanologists study volcanoes because of their remoteness and low volcanism rates compared to Iceland, Hawaii or Indonesia. Volcanoguy 19:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you Indonesia and Iceland, but Hawaii only really has three historically active volcanoes, against a whole spew of them (remember the list :D) Also, this should be fun. ResMar 04:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? I have read some info on the GVP website about two possible unnamed submarine volcanoes somewhere around Necker Island and Oahu erupted in the 50's.[5][6] But Canada may still have been more volcanically active than countries like Iceland and Indonesia. The best way to calculate what country has been the most volcanically active is how many eruptions/volcanic events have been recognized in those countries. Iceland and Indonesia do not contain cratons or shields as far as I am aware of while Canada does, which are Precambrian age. Thus, Canada has been volcanically active a lot longer than Iceland and Indonesia; volcanics about 2 billion years old are common in the Canadian Shield. But I do not know the frequency of Canada's volcanism back then. So it is hard to tell which one of those countries has had the most eruptions/volcanic events, especially since Canada's oldest volcanics are eroded and metamorphosed/deformed. Volcanoguy 05:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting links. ResMar 02:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Too bad nobody has given names for them. If they were named I would have no problems to create articles for them. It seems a bit odd to find evidence for historic submarine eruptions at the Hawaiian Islands way from the hotspot huh? Volcanoguy 02:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Volcano portal

Was wondering if you could review our portal? I need only one more for a pass. Also, good eye for Black Tusk :) ResMar 00:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Just came back from collecting over 100 iron ore pellets along the railroad of Sherman Mine :) Volcanoguy 00:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you have a fun life. Too bad there aren't any volcanoes in New York :( ResMar 17:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I normally find the pellets when I am bored. Could use them for shooting someone in the ass with a slingshot but I do not use slingshots often :) Volcanoguy

And I thought it was serious work. Lol :) ResMar 22:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is, well the way I collected them was pretty serious anyway. All what I had to put them in was a big strong plastic bag. I had to walk for like 5 kilometers to the mine, which took at least an hour, then search for the pellets along the tracks. Luckly, I found out during one of my explorations that there are hundreds of iron ore pellets between the railroad ties near and at the end of the track where the mine used to fill up the trains then send them to Hamilton down south. After the bag was like a quater full I left the place then I had to walk back again for about 5 kilometers, which must have been almost two hours given the weight of the iron. Heavy stuff. If I filled up the entire bag it would have taken longer to get back. I am not sure if this iron ore is connected with volcanic activity but I do know that every major volcanic cycle associated with the Temagami greenstone belt is capped by metamorphosed sedimentary and/or iron formations. The iron ore pellets at the mine originated from massive banded iron formations. So I am just wondering if these banded iron formations cap a major volcanic cycle as well. Volcanoguy 00:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Need your opinion. ResMar 00:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

There arn't any volcanoes in New York? There must be at least volcanic deposits from prehistoric volcanism. I didn't know much about the magmatism in my area until this year when I read some papers on the internet from doing research. Volcanoguy 10:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Good job

Wikipedia:FCDW/3000. Mount Cayley is one of the 3000th FAs. You should feel proud. Ironicly enough, I'm the one writing it too :) ResMar 17:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL. So what is this about? I do not really know anything about featured articles other than them being Wikipedia's best articles. Volcanoguy 20:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Your article is one of the 6 promoted that were the 3000th FA. As in, SandyGeorgia archived 6 successful FAs, bringing the total to 3001. Might you stand for a little quote on your involvement with the article? It would be appreciated. Cheers, ResMar 23:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I likely would but I do not understand too much about this. Like what am I suppoed to quote? Where am I supposed to quote? The link you gave me just gives descriptions about the six featured articles. Volcanoguy 01:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, what your feelings are about reaching 3000 FAs? ResMar 15:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I see you created a section for comments. Volcanoguy 22:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

cease and desist using my photo

you've used a number of my photos that were specifically uploaded to flickr ALL RIGHT RESERVED. Please cease and desist.

Specifically:

Spectrum Range flanks.jpg Spectrum Range Colors.jpg Spectrum Range melt - Mount Edziza Provincial Park.jpg Nahta Cone, British Columbia.jpg Hoodoo Mountain volcano.jpg Lava flows at Hoodoo Mountain.jpg Hoodoo Mountain frontside, British Columbia.jpg

All of these photos were taken in the course of my work and are backed up in company archives, my personal computer, and in hard copy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Here fishy (talk • contribs) 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is your proof they are your images? The images are licenced under Creative Commons, not copyrighted. Check for yourself. I uploaded them for that reason. They do not say they are copyrighted. You have the wrong person that stole them if they really are yours, sorry. Why can't we use them if they are? The problem is if they get deleted there will not be real pics for Hoodoo or Nahta. Canadian volcanoes do not get lots of pics for their articles. So just deleting them is just put down for those articles. It would be nice if you could help inprove articles related to Canadian volcanism and not go against it. Volcanoguy 02:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The images were copied from my site on Flickr, and uploaded by another Flickr user under a Creative Commons license. Please see the original files here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fishiologist/sets/72157617852760110/. I'm currently in the process of reporting the Flickr user (nass5518) to the legal department at Yahoo! Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Here fishy (talk • contribs) 02:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Further, If you wish to continue using my photos, please use the originals and link back to my Flickr site with credit to me. I don't mind people using my stuff, as long as they ask first. Sorry for the hostility, but I assumed that you were also the flickr use that stole the photos. --Here fishy (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Here fishy (talk • contribs) 02:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I do not have a flickr account. They are just photos for christ sake. All of my self-created photos are uploaded on Wikimedia Commons and are all public domain (i.e. anyone can use them). You are just making yourself sound selfish by what you are saying. If you do not want people to steal your stuff, do not even bother posting it on the internet. That is a way of being smart. People steal things every day. Volcanoguy 04:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to butt in, but this seems to be going from bad to worse. Volcanoguy, there seem to be strong indications here that Here fishy is telling the truth: they uploaded the photos to Flickr before the other account did (at least for the two I've checked so far), and at a higher resolution. So although we made a honest mistake, I don't think we have a leg to stand on regarding continued use of her photos (which are impressive). If you want to keep using them here, we'll need her permission. I have a lot of respect for the work you've done on our Canadian volcanism articles, so I hope you don't mind me saying this, but you can be abrasive sometimes, and your responses to Here fishy above would put my back up if they were directed at me. Please keep in mind that she has been wronged here more than anyone, and think about what you say (and have said) from her perspective.

Here fishy, the photos in your volcanic photostream are very striking, and they would be very useful illustrations for our articles. I hope you'll still consider letting us continue to use them. The easiest way to do that would probably be for us to delete the existing copies and upload yours from Flickr, but you would need to put them under an appropriate Creative Commons license there (CC-BY or CC-BY-SA) for us to do that. --Avenue (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What mistake are you talking about? I uploaded those photos from the user (nass5518) that obviously stolled her photos without me not noticing. Just because I did not know nass5518 stoled Here fishy's photos then I uploaded the pics from that user does not make me a stealer. If you are indicating I am "nass5518", the answer is no. I have already said I do not have an account on Flickr. Just because "nass5518" appears to be a fan of BC mountains/volcanoes due to the large collection of BC mountains and volcanoes dosen't mean it is me either. I am sure there are more Canadian volcano fans than myself. And I personally do not care if I can be abrasive or not. I suggest you see my last comment in the section "Newberry shield volcano/Yellowstone hotspot" above. I do not care for lots of things. If it was someone I like and do not have problems with them, I would likely be more kind to them. Volcanoguy 07:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't trying to imply you were nass5518. In one sense, you did nothing wrong; you found photos that seemed to be under an appropriate Creative Commons license, and you went through the proper procedure to upload them to Wikimedia Commons with that license attached. But from a legal perspective, our copies were made without permission from the copyright owner (even though we didn't know it), and we are also providing copies to others without permission. The fact that we did this because nass5518 effectively lied to us may make us less culpable, but I think the least we need to do now is delete our copies as soon as possible. I have nominated them all for deletion on Commons. --Avenue (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It actually looks like Here fishy started nominating them for deletion before compaining here, but only got partway through the process. So my nomination efforts at least filled in the gaps, but also produced some duplicate messages, e.g. on your old talk page there. Sorry about the repeated posts; I hope I've now deleted all the extras. --Avenue (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if Here fishy allows us to use her photos, the (C) on them has to be removed. Volcanoguy 08:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

True, they probably wouldn't be ideal illustrations with the watermark in place. It wasn't there when I was writing my initial comment. --Avenue (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the back-up from some people. As I said, I don't have a problem with others using my photos, but credit should be given where credit is due. nass5518 violated my copyright and I wrongly assumed that Volcanoguy was the same person. For that, I apologized, so I'm a little put off that I was then called selfish and stupid for posting my photos online at all. I made the original photos on my flickr page private and made watermarked copies, but I'd be willing to grant limited access to the originals as long as proper credit is given. I just want the illicit copies of my photos deleted. I hope that this clears things up. --Here fishy (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry Here fishy. There is no need to be put off by anything. I was actually confused because at first you you wanted me to cease and desist using your photos. Then you said you do not mind people using them unless they give you credit. But I suppose you said to cease and desist using your photos because you thought I was nass5518 stealing your photos on Flickr. If you do not mind people using your photos then you are obviously not being selfish. I was also not saying you are stupid. You can upload the photos yourself on Wikimedia Commons from here if you like. Just click entirely my own work on that page if you are the creator of them. Then just fill out whatever is necessarily to complete the upload. But you need to create an account like you are using here if you do not have one.

As for credit, what kind of credit do you want? I am currently the main user on Wikipedia that creates and expands articles related to Canadian volcanism. And I mainly post volcano photos on topics related to volcanism. For example, a picture of Hoodoo Mountain would go on the Hoodoo Mountain article, a picture of Nahta Cone would go on the Nahta Cone and so on. They may also be posted on related articles by other Wikipedia users. Volcanoguy 01:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

We usually credit the photographer on the image description page. The deletion process may take a while, perhaps a week or so. Volcanoguy, it might help speed that along if you would weigh in at the deletion discussion. Here fishy, would you prefer we hold off discussing future usage until that is complete? I wouldn't want you to feel like you were being pressured into agreeing to that as part of the deletion process. --Avenue (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Here fishy. I just noticed this thread; I have uploaded quite a few files to Wikimedia Commons, which is a place where you can specify a copyright and upload the image. (It sounds like you may be going for something like a Creative Commons attribution license, in which anyone can use the photo so long as they give you credit for it.) But in any case, feel free to contact me if you need a hand or someone to point you in the right direction. Awickert (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again all. I've started uploading some of my original images (others will come - they're on another computer). I think I've got the license right - you should be able to use them as long as you attribute them properly. Hope this helps your quest to bring Canadian volcanoes to the masses!--Here fishy (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it sure does help :) And the images are appropiately licenced. I have removed all of the copied photos and replaced them with your uploaded versions. Could not find a newly uploaded version of File:Spectrum Range melt - Mount Edziza Provincial Park.jpg anywhere so I replaced that with File:Spectrum Range colours.JPG. I will go on Commons later to add categories for your photos. Volcanoguy 04:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Review?

Hi Volcanoguy! Hope everything's going well. I recently nominated Armero tragedy at FAC, would you be interested in providing a review? It could use another expert's eye. Thanks, ceranthor 19:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Only if you review Mount Fee's FAC as well :) Volcanoguy 22:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem! ceranthor 22:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed! Here's the link. ceranthor 22:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Supported. Volcanoguy 00:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! The candidacy's going pretty smoothly so far. Your article looks great, I'm sure it'll pass easily. ceranthor 00:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably. A bit of a short article, but it is large enough for such a small volcano with not much known about it. I chose to bring Mount Fee to FA for that reason because topics with lots of information normally have more problems and are harder to bring to FA standards. Volcanoguy 00:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Interview

We're on!. Well, preliminarily anyway. ResMar 22:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a good start. Volcanoguy 04:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Cite ccv

Hi. We had an edit conflict while I was rewriting the doc page. Is everything OK now. I also rewrote the template just a bit ago and created a testcases page. The new version eliminates a nested transclusion which is not usually an issue. If anything is messed up please leave a note on the template discussion page or on my talk page and I'll get on it. Nice banner. –droll [chat] 02:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Unnamed parameters are allowed in this version which should simplify things. Any ideas you have are most welcome. –droll [chat] 02:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I did not know there was a cite template for Canadian volcanoes until tonight. All I suggested was a date field may also be appropiate since the NRC volcano pages display when they were last modified. The Black Tusk page (the one given as an example in the ccv template) was last modified on April 10, 2009. Volcanoguy 06:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

FLC review request

Hi Volcanoguy, I noticed that you are something of an expert when it comes to volcanoes. Do you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of largest volcanic eruptions/archive1 (only if you have the time, of course)? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I thought I already commented on it but guess not. Volcanoguy 21:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha!

Robert Edwin Seamount! What a name =) ResMar 01:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sherman pic

No problem. Unfortunately, the source of my photos was a one-off flight in the aircraft shown here, so I probably won't be able to take any similar shots anytime soon. However, I do have a couple other aerial shots of the mine that I'll upload, now that I see that there's interest. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Here are a couple more. They could use some editing to remove the haze, but I haven't done anything to them yet as I think I overcompensated a bit on my first image. -M.Nelson (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Those are nice. I have lots of Sherman pics I took from the ground during several of my explorations there, including the South Pit, West Pit, North Pit and one of the Turtle Pits, but most of them have not been uploaded yet. My only personal Sherman pics I uploaded to Commons is File:North Pit banded iron formation.jpg, File:Sherman Mine East Pit.jpg, File:Sherman Mine East Pit west.jpg and File:Sherman iron ore pellets.jpg. But I still have to finish exploring the West Pit, which is the largest open pit of Sherman. Hopefully I will be able to get a good lookout for a good picture somewhere along the West Pit when I go back to complete my exploration. Volcanoguy 20:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The pic with the platform is the western end of the South Pit BTW. Volcanoguy 20:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I've requested the file to be moved on commons. I guess it was silly of me to assume that every pit is the East Pit..... -M.Nelson (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's ok. I am not sure about File:Sherman Mine East Pit from air 3.jpg though. Is that the same pit as File:Temagami and Sherman Mine from air.jpg? Volcanoguy 20:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That one looks like it might be here, judging from the clearing and the lake's shore. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If that pit in the pic contained a platform then it's the South Pit (the one you suggest it might be). There is only one of Sherman's pits that contains a platform within it. That's how I know File:Sherman Mine East Pit from air 2.jpg is the South Pit. Volcanoguy 22:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Adams Mine

I don't recall adding the word "controversial" (that really isn't my style; I'm one of those who usually removes that word from articles, because even if it's technically true it's usually not helpful from a neutrality standpoint.) Though if I did add it, then wow — I've now removed that word, but since the list does include other abandoned mines I don't see a compelling reason to remove it from the list altogether. But for what it's worth, the controversy at Adams wasn't about the mining; it was about the attempt to repurpose the pit as a garbage dump after the mine itself shut down. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I see. But according to this, you were the one that added the statement "controversial abandoned mine in Kirkland Lake, Ontario," as well as Adams Mine. Volcanoguy 20:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Temagami greenstone belt

Gatoclass (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you finally got to this! It looks spectacular. ceranthor 19:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will probably put more effort into it sometime. Its igneous rocks have got me wondering about the origins of this greenstone belt. According to some articles, diorite is created by partial melting of mafic rocks above a subduction zone and is commonly produced in volcanic arcs. Andesites are characteristic of subduction zones, and dacitic magmas are formed by the subduction of young oceanic crust under a thick felsic continental plate, all of which are calc-alkaline rocks. Calc-alkaline rocks are typically found in volcanic arcs. Therefore, it makes sense that the Temagami greenstone belt formed as a result of subduction volcanism during the Neoarchean 2,736 million years ago because calc-alkaline rocks like diorite, dacite, andesite, rhyolite and basalt all exist in the belt. Because of this, it may be appropiate to include Category:Subduction volcanism or Category:Volcanic arcs in the article. It would be nice to see what some WP geologists think about this suggestion. Volcanoguy 08:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibility, do any of your sources make that jump? Would be nice to support it with a ref within the article text. Good work on expanding the article. Vsmith (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. But no, the given sources do not have anything about the origins of the TGB, just the igneous rock clue. I have not seen any sources that give information about the origins of this greenstone belt either. The Geological Survey of Canada does state "Neoarchean volcano-plutonic rocks of arc affinity dominate the oceanic margins of the Superior craton and indicate that there was widespread subduction prior to the 2.72-2.68 Ga collisional events that amalgamated the present-day Superior craton" here though. From comparing geologic maps of the Superior craton and the location of the Temagami greenstone belt, the Temagami belt is at the southern margin of the Superior craton. And the belt is at least 2,736 million years old (source is given in the TGB article), so it pre-dates the collisional events. Obviously, at least some of the TGB volcanics were erupted underwater because of the existence of pillow lava. But I don't really know if it was freshwater or seawater the lava came into contact with. Possibly seawater because in the "Rock alteration" section it states that the silicified mafic pillow lava alteration west of the Ontario Northland Railway, east of the Big Dan Shear Zone and adjacent to Outley Bay and Boot Bay of Net Lake is from low temperature seawater. So the TGB must have been in or near a sea/ocean sometime throughout its history. And volcanic arcs and subduction zones are normally at or in seas/oceans as far as I am aware of. So perhaps this is more evidence that magmatism of the TGB is subduction-related. Just like the GSC webpage I linked: "Neoarchean volcano-plutonic rocks of arc affinity dominate the oceanic margins of the Superior craton." If the TGB is at the southern margin of the Superior craton and it contains volcanics that erupted in seawater (e.g. pillow lava), it is likely that the TGB is at a former oceanic margin. Volcanoguy 00:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm unfortunately no help at all on this one. But if you do find a source that you think might be helpful, let me know and I will look to see what it says and/or give it to you. Awickert (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's alright. I looked at the link I posted on your talk page in June (this one) about the origin and development of Archean greenstone belts and it gives five possible formations: flood volcanism on submerged (shallow water) continental platforms, submarine volcanic plains, diverse volcanic sequences, continental felsic volcanic centres, and late alkaline-shoshonitic sequences. To me the closest possible origin(s) for the TGB is either submarine volcanic plains or diverse volcanic sequences. According to the link, greenstone belts that have their origins from submarine volcanic plains comprise massive and pillowed tholeiitic mafic flows ± komatiite, banded iron formations, mudstones and rare greywackes. The TGB contains massive and pillowed tholeiitic mafic flows and banded iron formations, but there is no komatiites, mudstones or rare greywackes as far as I am aware of. Also, it does not mention anything about felsic rocks.

As for greenstone belts that have their origins from diverse volcanic sequences, it states that they "comprise a variety of submarine to lesser subearial units, dominated by basalt, with lesser andesite, dacite and rhyolite flows, and dacite-rhyolite pyroclastic units. In some belts komatiites are also present. Both tholeiitic and calc-alkaline signatures are often observed, with basalts ranging from slightly light REE (that does REE mean, rare Earth element?) depleted to moderately light REE enriched with negative Nb (which is the symbol for niobium?) anomalies similar to modern arc-related basalts. These sequences are commonly associated with syn-volcanic granitoids. Nd istotopic data suggest that some sequences are juvenile while others have experienced minor interaction with other enriched sources. They are suggested to represent arc magmatism (both island arc and continental arc on a thin margin), arc-plume interaction, arc rifting or back-arc magmatism." This seems to be closer to the TGB's origin than the "submarine volcanic plains" suggestion because it contains submarine and subearial units and both tholeiitic and calc-alkaline rocks, as well as pyroclastics. According to this, at least some TGB intrusions are synvolcanic (e.g. the Iceland Lake Pluton), but I am not sure about the other info associated with the "diverse volcanic sequences" origin. There is two volcanic sequences in the TGB that differ from each other; the Younger Volcanic Complex mostly mafic rocks whereas the Older Volcanic Complex is mostly felsic rocks. Volcanoguy 07:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

REE is indeed "rare Earth element", and Nb is Niobium (though I'm not the kind of geologist who would know why they are looking at Nb). I'm not sure what you can say in terms of an interpretation without running amock of WP:OR. I believe that saying that a simple comparison between the formations and what is found in the Temagami belt would be OK, but some people are more sticklers for these rules than I am. I don't think I would be OK with saying that this belt IS something unless it is published somewhere, because that would definitely be OR.

Vsmith was in mining, and Woodwalker and Mikenorton do structure/tectonics, so they might be helpful. In terms of hard rock chemical/isotopic proxies and igneous petrology, I ride the short bus. Awickert (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would it be OR to say that the TGB is something? Of course it's something; it's a unit of metamorphosed sedimenentary and igneous rocks. Also worth mentioning is this in the same papers: "The origin and development of Archean greenstone belts continues to be strongly debated, particularly with regard to the roles of subduction, plume magmatism, rifting, diapirism and autochthonous vs allochthonous development (e.g. de Wit, 1998; Hamilton, 2003). It is apparent from studies in the Superior and Slave Provinces of Canada that strongly contrasting tectonic styles may have been in operation at the same time." According to the book Mantle plumes: their identification through time, the origin of banded iron formations has been a subject of debate as well. Geologists have recognized that the iron in banded iron formations likely originated from some type of volcanic activity. Island–arc volcanoes, continental flood basalts, greenstone belt volcanism, mid–ocean ridge volcanism, and underwater mantle plume volcanism have all been suggested as the source of the iron. Volcanoguy 22:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

U r talking of old stuff, very old indeed. I'm sorting out Rodinia, and this stuff is 2,000 Ma older !!! --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

More like 1.7 billion years older. The TGB article is currently the most complete WP Precambrian article IMO. Volcanoguy 10:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

By "something", I meant a causal something. Mentioning potential processes seems OK to me so long as it is clear that it is not decided upon. Awickert (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your message on my TP, but I don't know if I can be of help. If they say 'arc affinity', they mean: with the elemental composition of an arc magma. It doesn't necessarily imply anything about the origin, since as far as I know, 'real' subduction (evidenced by the formation of blueschists, eclogites) accompanying volcanic arcs is only known from the Phanerozoic (550 Ma and younger). If they are cautious to avoid making the geodynamic implication, they must do so on purpose. Which means we can't say anything about the definite origin of your greenstones either. In geology a lot is still unknown, especially about the Proterozoic and Archean. There are ideas, like the one proposed by De Wit (1998) and some in Hamilton's book. Some are compatible. But it's still far from a complete picture. See [7] for a very short overview.

Another thought: I read something about alteration in the discussion above. You say there is evidence for primary rock-water interaction, but I think that's a bit precarious. With rocks that old (Neoarchean) anything may have happened since their original formation. The isotopic and elemental composition may well have changed by other forms of metasomatism. The pillows are nice though, and unmistakable!

BTW: your pictures are great and (on first sight) the article looks like a thorough piece of work. Nice job! Woodwalker_talk 14:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I know what they mean by "arc affinity". If there was no "real" subduction before the Phanerozoic how did continents move about? For supercontinents to form there must have been collisions, and subduction zones are convergent plate boundaries. The biggest question: how did igneous rocks like dacite, andesite or diorite form if there was no "real" subduction? These rocks are normally found in volcanic arcs, which are created by subduction of oceanic crust. According to Google, there is lots of information about subduction in the Archean (here). Is the lack of blueschists and eclogites really good evidence that subduction did not exist before the Phanerozoic? Lots of things have changed since Earth's formation. For example, kimberlite magmatism was common in the Cretaceous and komatiite magmatism was most common during the Archean.

The TGB does include rocks that interacted with water (e.g. pillow lava), but I am not saying everything in the belt was formed in water because that's not true; this is one of the main reasons I doubt the TGB has its origins from a submarine volcanic plain. Volcanoguy 21:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It depends a bit on what you like to call 'subduction'. The process we see today, with hydrated slabs sinking to great depth in the mantle and partially melting there most probably didn't occur in the Archean, due to the larger heat flow and higher temperatures in the mantle then. I'm not enough at home in this subject to know the current scientific consensus but I know there are alternative geodynamic models, like delamination of the lower lithosphere (see for example Zegers & Van Keken, 2001). Even the models that do involve one plate moving under the other are often not similar to modern style subduction. A slab might not have sunken at all due to its higher bouyancy (no eclogite formation means a lower density and smaller slab pull force), instead just moving underneath the overriding plate. From another point of view, there may be many ways to create a magma with arc affinity we don't know of. We have only one planet close at hand to study in detail: the Earth as it is today. The Archean Earth may have been a very different planet and the details of its geodynamics are unknown yet. Woodwalker_talk 14:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's best to just keep all of this controversy out of the article. The opening sentence "it is interpreted that greenstone belts were formed by many geological processes, such as tectonism, magmatism, metamorphism and sedimentation, operating over different spatial and temporal scales" in the geology section is good enough. One of the main reasons I wanted to add more information about the origins of the TGB was because almost every other article I did major work on I added quite a bit of information about their origins. For example, the Mount Cayley volcanic field, Mount Fee and Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. But that is relatively new geology compared to stuff that formed during the Precambrian. And eruptive activity is still likely to occur in those areas. Volcanoguy 22:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Geology of the Okanagan book & Lambly Creek

I was in the gift shop of the ARt Gallery of the South Okanagan last night and among hte book-offerings was a book by the Okanagan Geological Society or some such body, updated with details on everything from volcanic ash to glaciation and "hot spots".....there's a passage on the Lambly Creek flows, and I think columns, and there's on the back cover the "West Kettle Columns", which are similar to the Keremeos Columns. Big essay in it on Mount Boucherie's volcanic history, also....$24.95 I don't have, not really my topic, and for 24.95 there's other local history books I'd buy first, but thought I'd make you aware of it. Lambly Creek is related to the Chilcotin Basalts, it said, but I don't think it's part of them.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I have never herd of the Lambly Creek flows. And surprisingly, I have never really put much effort into Boucherie's article. Mostly just some reorganizing and added a few sentences. Much of the article's text was written by User:S charette. Volcanoguy 22:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on December 23, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 23, 2010. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 03:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The Volcano is the name given to a small cinder cone in the Boundary Ranges of the Coast Mountains in northwestern British Columbia, Canada. It is located about 60 km (37 mi) northwest of the small community of Stewart near the head of Lava Fork. With a summit elevation of 1,330 m (4,360 ft) and a topographic prominence of 311 m (1,020 ft), it rises above the surrounding rugged landscape on a remote mountain ridge that represents the northern flank of a glaciated U-shaped valley. It is the southernmost of 10 volcanoes comprising the Iskut-Unuk River Cones volcanic field, as well as the most recent to erupt. Even though The Volcano is the most recent to erupt in the Iskut-Unuk volcanic field, its structure is poorly formed and has been reduced by erosion from alpine glacial ice found at its elevation and latitude. It represents one of the few historically active volcanoes in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province and has a base elevation estimated to be 100 m (330 ft). Like most cinder cones, The Volcano consists of a pile of loose volcanic ash, lapilli-sized tephra and volcanic bombs. These were deposited during periods of lava fountain activity. The vent area contains small deposits of sulfur precipitated from volcanic gases and volcanic bombs up to 0.5 m (1.6 ft) long. (more...)

Awesome! The article has been maintained by me since June 21 this year. I also just finished doing some tweaking in the lead so it well fit with the rest of the article's text. This article will be the first to be featured on the main page extensively created by myself :-) Volcanoguy 08:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Mont Meager from french Wikipedia

Hi,

Sorry for my english. I understand your point of view but this is an opinion from Canadian people. Mount Meager and Mount Garibaldi are such tall and have big eruptions but they are inactive since thousands of years. Unlike this mountains, there are thousands of volcanoes which have more recent eruptions. We can't put thousands of volcanoes in average, elevated or maximum importance. From Europe, Meager and Garibaldi aren't more important than Ethiopian or Chilean volcanoe that didn't erupt since this time.

Best regards Rémi

Just because it has not erupted for at least 2,000 years does not mean it has to be low importance. In fact, Meager is not 100% inactive. It contains hot spring and seismic activity. And 2,350 years in geologic terms is recent, not old. I guess Olympus Mons on Mars is low importance too since it has not erupted for millions of years? But it is the largest volcano in the solar system. The English volcano project does not focus only on volcanoes that are in English countries, it focuses on volcanoes worldwide. Volcanoes such as Hekla in Iceland, Krakatoa in Indonesia, Kīlauea and Mauna Loa in Hawaii, Nevado del Ruiz in Colombia and so on have high ratings. See Category:Top-importance WikiProject Volcanoes articles and Category:High-importance WikiProject Volcanoes articles for more. As for The Volcano, it produced Canada's most recent eruption some 150 years ago. So that is most likely low in your terms too right? I bet an article about Canadian volcanism on the French Wikipedia would be ridiculously "low" as well. French is not only located in Europe - it is also in Canada. It seems like the French volcano project is French bias insted of a worldwide view of the topic like it is for the English volcano project. Earth is more than Europe. And believe me, I read the importance ratings on the French project before I changed it back to "Moyenne". Moyenne is average, not maximum. Volcanoguy 14:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm agree with you. I changed the importance rate to "Moyenne" for Meager and Garibaldi. Rémih (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Volcanoguy. You have new messages at Talk:The Volcano (British Columbia).
Message added 10:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks! DBaK (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Volcanoguy. You have new messages at Talk:Parícutin.
Message added 10:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

this is one of those "while you're at-its".Sorry to exploit your goodwill and expertise but it is still a volcano. albeit in the "wrong" country! Would you mind having a very quick look at my "Level" comment? I am not even sure that I have clearly explained my concern but I hope it's sort-of clear what I am trying to get at. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Review of Mount Fee

It looks pretty good. I made slight edits for punctuation. Any questions, don't hesitate to ask. The only suggestion to improve it would be to add a few jokes. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I guess I will repost it for FAC again and see what comes out. Volcanoguy 22:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Input requested

As you are the author of several of the articles transcluded in the template, and you appear to be a mountain nut, could you maybe contribute to the organisation discussion going on at Template talk:Interior Ranges of British Columbia? I just made it yesterday, and its a bit messy. Skookum and I can probably figure it out, but the more the merrier. The Interior(Talk) 20:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Mountainous navboxes

Thanks for your help with the navboxes, and kudos for putting together the Interior Mountains one so fast. Those things are finicky. Also, noticed your work on nearly all the articles transcluded in them, so I'd like to give you a sort of "Lifetime Achievement Barnstar" for you work on BC's mountains on WP. Keep at it!

		The Geography Barnstar
		For strong efforts improving our coverage of British Columbia geography The Interior (Talk) 05:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will probably do more work on the Interior Mountains template sometime. There are several other BC geography topics that need expansion. Volcanoguy 16:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Improper page moves

Please don't do cut-n-paste moves as you did with Chambers–Strathy Batholith as that disconnects the article from its history. Rather use the page move function. I've undone the Chambers–Strathy Batholith and talk page move. See WP:Move. Vsmith (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not care as I follow WP:DGAF and WP:IAR..... Also, see WP:ENDASH. An en dash is not used for a hyphenated personal name (Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones), nor a hyphenated place name (Guinea-Bissau), nor with an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade). The sources do not use endashes in Chambers-Strathy Batholith. So there. You can redirect/fix your issues if you want but Chambers-Strathy Batholith is the proper usage. I have undone your "bad-faith" move for this reason..... Volcanoguy 23:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved it for you. Sorry 'bout your attitude conflict. Get well soon. Cheers - Vsmith (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I just get ticked off at stuff like that - other WP users are aware of this. You can fix the others of you want: Net Lake-Vermilion Lake Deformation Zone and Milne-Sherman Road. I can't seen to move Circum–Superior Belt to the proper Circum-Superior Belt. Volcanoguy 00:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you moved Circum-Superior Belt a year ago so there is a redirect that must be deleted before moving it back and yeah that requires admin help ... so I can do it for you. The others also - hopefully no one has edited since your recent move on those -- that would complicate the paperwork ... Stay cool :) Vsmith (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Done (all 3) - take a look & make sure I didn't mess up the post move fixes. Vsmith (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Will do :) I thought an editor could still move a page after it has been moved once. I moved the Circum-Superior Belt page during a time when I was confused with the usage between endashes and hyphens, given there similar apparence and some articles on my watchlist were moved to use endashs insted of hyphens. BTW if I "snap" at you again I am sorry. I have a hard time controlling such attitudes sometimes. Interesting enough, during one of my several discussions with User:Skookum1 he introduced me to someone named Robert Allan Brown, who had nothing to do with volcanoes but was nicknamed "Volcanic" because of his personality. I guess my user name can take another meaning LOL.

All looks good. Volcanoguy 02:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lake Temagami Access Road

The article Lake Temagami Access Road has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable resource / cottage road. No prejudice against recreation with verification of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Temagami townships discussion

Hello, Volcanoguy. You have new messages at Qui1che's talk page.
Message added 05:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just to acknowledge the civil and interesting discussion we had at User_talk:Qui1che#Temagami_townships. Thanks.--papageno (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Talon Chute

Hello. I have just made some additions to the article Talon Chute. I noticed it has a Category tag of w:Category:Copper mines in Canada, but I don't see anything in the article that supports it. Do you have any material on the subject?
PS I have found what looks like a good map resource for incorporated entities and geographic townships in Ontario at Restructuring Maps of Ontario. Not all former townships now within a larger restructured entity are shown; for example, I know you are interested in the Temagami area, and it is shown as one single entity, without its geographic townships shown. Still, the maps are very clear, and geographic townships outside of incorporated entities are given.
PPS OK, OK, I'll stop using northeastern Ontario in Temagami articles. --papageno (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just delete the copper mine category since the article states it was a marble mine. Google showed no results for a copper mine in the Talton Chute area. The only edit I made to that article was this on January 5 to add List of mines in Ontario. I deleted "northeastern Ontario" simply because there is an article about Northeastern Ontario. Note Northeastern Ontario is the name of a region, not just the northeastern part of Ontario. The proper usage for the region is "Northeastern Ontario", not northeastern Ontario. The article makes that quite clear as it uses "Northeastern Ontario" in the text. Google also makes it obvious that it is "Northeastern Ontario" - very few results use "northeastern Ontario".[8] Volcanoguy 02:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No accusation was intended re Talon Chute article category; just thought you might have insight since you seem to have a good handle on geology. Will remove the copper category.

Agree, since Northeastern Ontario is a region, and I do intend to mention the region when including it in an article, "Northeastern" should be capitalized. Not sure using "Northeastern Ontario" alone does it for me, though, as it would seem to suggest that "Northeastern Ontario" is the name of national subdivision, which it is not: it isn't a province or territory. Does Northeastern Ontario work for you at all?--papageno (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. Volcanoguy 16:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)