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:
Click "next photo" for the rest of the gallery; some really cool pics. Skookum1 ( talk) 01:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice job! (blew me away) BTW, Loihi Seamount's on a GA nom. Res Mar 21:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
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! Res Mar 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)
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)
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)
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, Res Mar 00:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Sorry it took so long, but I'm finally off: [1]. Res Mar 19:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm willing to help with the prose, if you need it. Ceran llama chat post 16:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
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.
- Warthog Demon 04:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 08:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
Very nice! If only I could do something like that...I live a long way from any volcano. Res Mar 23:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [1] ( 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)
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)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Loihi Seamount FAC round two. Spamming all active members of WP:VOLCANO. Happy editing! Res Mar 00:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
The WikiProject Earthquakes newsletter for September 2009 has been released. Be sure to check on our status. ceran thor 11:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
Thought you might find this interesting, though it's not directly to do with volcanoes. Skookum1 ( talk) 17:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I've replied on my talk page.
Btw, while I'm running through your article, how about you vote on mine... Res Mar 19:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
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*... Res Mar 12:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC) |
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)
If you need help clearing the ref stuff, this should help. :) Res Mar 01:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
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, ceran thor 20:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
Totally tired of it. I'm working on a reorganization of the Volcanoes project. Res Mar 17:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Poke, poke. Happy New Year! Res Mar 01:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
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! Little Mountain 5 23:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The DYK project 12:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
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. ;) ceran thor 20:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
The DYK project ( nominate) 18:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations and great work on 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes! Awickert ( talk) 17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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)
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, ceran thor 17:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
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, ceran thor 00:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 03:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
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 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! ceran thor 11:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
o/ That weird guy named Res Mar 02:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
Click "next photo" for the rest of the gallery; some really cool pics. Skookum1 ( talk) 01:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Nice job! (blew me away) BTW, Loihi Seamount's on a GA nom. Res Mar 21:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
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! Res Mar 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)
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)
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)
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, Res Mar 00:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Sorry it took so long, but I'm finally off: [1]. Res Mar 19:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm willing to help with the prose, if you need it. Ceran llama chat post 16:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
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.
- Warthog Demon 04:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Dravecky ( talk) 08:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
Very nice! If only I could do something like that...I live a long way from any volcano. Res Mar 23:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [1] ( 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)
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)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Loihi Seamount FAC round two. Spamming all active members of WP:VOLCANO. Happy editing! Res Mar 00:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
The WikiProject Earthquakes newsletter for September 2009 has been released. Be sure to check on our status. ceran thor 11:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
Thought you might find this interesting, though it's not directly to do with volcanoes. Skookum1 ( talk) 17:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I've replied on my talk page.
Btw, while I'm running through your article, how about you vote on mine... Res Mar 19:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
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*... Res Mar 12:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC) |
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)
If you need help clearing the ref stuff, this should help. :) Res Mar 01:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
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, ceran thor 20:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
Totally tired of it. I'm working on a reorganization of the Volcanoes project. Res Mar 17:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Poke, poke. Happy New Year! Res Mar 01:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
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! Little Mountain 5 23:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The DYK project 12:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
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. ;) ceran thor 20:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
The DYK project ( nominate) 18:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations and great work on 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes! Awickert ( talk) 17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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)
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, ceran thor 17:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
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, ceran thor 00:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 03:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
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 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! ceran thor 11:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
o/ That weird guy named Res Mar 02:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)