User talk:Volcanoguy/Archive 7

Hello Volcanoguy. I don't have an image of blairmorite, but I know someone who does. I'll contact him and ask if he would contribute it. Georgialh (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Georgialh: thanks. Are you aware of information regarding the source/origin of volcanism that created the Crowsnest Formation? Volcanoguy 02:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Itcha Range you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Squeamish Ossifrage -- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Most certainly didn't take 7 days! I've posted a review, with very little needed to change. This is an excellent article that will get it's green button quickly. I've added a few additional comments in case you are considering starting the path to a FA nomination, as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The article Itcha Range you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Itcha Range for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Squeamish Ossifrage -- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The image is up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgialh (talk • contribs) 03:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boulder Creek (Lillooet River), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pemberton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This message is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Disaster management.

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Disaster management for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confabulate) @ 20:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Volcanoguy. The reason for removing the "parenthesis" was purely out of simplification and I did not feel that this was an issue. Adding parenthesis is an act of noting the subtle differences on disambiguation pages or qualifying articles based on existing and/or competitive subdivisions. Removing the parenthesis from the article does not make it less a common name, whereas the short format Magic Mountain or Lost City does show ambiguousness: the name change just removes the ambiguity created by the Wikipedia markup. As much as it is common to use parenthesis to qualify on disambiguation pages, it is not necessarily needed on article pages. The original article already used "Hydrothermal Vent" in its title, I just removed extraneous text. Any search for "Magic Mountain" would have returned a disambiguation page showing the obvious links, and any search for Magic Mountain Hydrothermal Vent, would go directly there without the parenthesis. If you feel that it is overstepping, I invite you to revert, I will not insist (I'm not a purest). Thanks. ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zeorymer: there is a difference between "Magic Mountain" and "Magic Mountain Hydrothermal Field". What I am trying to say is that it is more commonly referred to as just "Magic Mountain", not "Magic Mountain Hydrothermal Field". "Magic Mountain" is a disambiguation page and the Magic Mountain field is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC so that is why "(hydrothermal field)" was added in the title. Volcanoguy 15:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Your right in addressing that there is a difference between "Magic Mountain" and "Magic Mountain Hydrothermal Field", but not in the way you stated. Regardless, as I stated, this is not an issue. As they say "be bold". I invite you to revert those changes. ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The article Itcha Range you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Itcha Range for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maitland Volcano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conglomerate. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you left a plea for help at the Math Wikiproject page which should have been directed to the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics since it didn't really involve the math articles. But to answer your question - you are dealing with Scientific notation, very common in the physical sciences and engineering. For your specific example, ~10^-4 km³yr^-1, the twiddle (~) means approximately, 10^-4 = 0.0001 (see the article), and km³yr^-1 gives the units which in this case are cubic kilometers per year (it is a rate of flow, so expressed as a volume per some time period). I haven't seen the -1 exponent used in a units expression very often, but that is a stylistic convention. I would have expected to see it written as km³/yr. I hope this helps. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Wcherowi: I'm just a bit puzzled since I am not used to seeing things like that. You can find the paragraph I quoted here on pages 1284 and 1285. It says "the eruption rate increased markedly (e.g., ~10^–4 km³ yr^–1) when volcanism began at Level Mountain at 15 Ma." Okay. After that it states "when Mount Edziza began to erupt (ca. 7 Ma), rates of magmatism for the northern Cordilleran volcanic province increased to ~3 × 10^–4 km³ yr^–1." I'm guessing this is a greater measurement since they say the magmatism rate increased. But how much of a difference is that to ~10^–4 km³ yr^–1? Then after that it says the "rates of magmatism have remained relatively constant at 10^–4 km³ yr^–1", which is similar to what is given for when volcanism began at Level Mountain. I say similar because they don't give the twiddle (~) for that rate. Then it says "current rates of magmatism for the northern Cordilleran volcanic province are much less than those estimated for Hawaii (10^–1–10^–3 km³ yr^–1; Shaw, 1987) or the Cascade volcanic arc (0.2–6 km³ yr^–1; Sherrod and Smith, 1990)." How much of a difference are the Hawaii and Cascade Arc magmatism rates to the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province rates of 10^–4 km³ yr^–1 and ~3 × 10^–4 km³ yr^–1? Volcanoguy 05:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

After Edziza erupted the flow rate increased to 0.0003 km³/yr (300% of what it was before). The Hawaii estimate is given as a range from 0.1 to 0.001 km³/yr (are you sure you copied that correctly? Ranges are usually given from smaller to larger values, and this isn't) and the Cascade arc ranges from 0.2 to 6.0 km³/yr. The Hawaii values range from 1000 to 10 times those of Cordilleran, while the Cascade values are 2000 to 60,000 times as large. All these values are approximate estimates, so I wouldn't put much store in the fact that some of them are reported without the twiddle. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Wcherowi: sorry for the long response time; I have been busy collecting information to rewrite the Level Mountain article. Yes the Hawaiian values were copied correctly, don't know why the range is given from larger to smaller values. Volcanoguy 08:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

On 6 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maitland Volcano, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Maitland Volcano in northern British Columbia is a prehistoric shield volcano of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maitland Volcano. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi -- can you add any sources to your article on Ray Mountain? I went looking and was unable to find any, and was about to propose the article for deletion until I noticed that you are still active on Wikipedia. The article has been unsourced since 2006. Thanks! —Tim Pierce (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tim Pierce: I just added a source. Volcanoguy 19:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Volcanoguy, I see you reverted again my attempt to clarify this category (which I created a while back) with a lower limit. So where do you see the lower height limit for a mountain? 900 m? 500 m? 300 m? 100 m? 10 m? 1 m? Clearly the lower we set it the more 'bumps' get included. But IMHO we should try and base it on some standard in the English-speaking world. The US doesn't have one, Britain and Ireland do. I'm not sure about Canada, Australia or South Africa, etc. Alternatively, if we can't agree where the limit is, confusion will reign and we may as well delete it. Thoughts? --Bermicourt (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That is the point there is no universally accepted definition of a mountain. The UK and Ireland may have a definition for what a mountain is in their country but that definition is not the same worldwide. So you have landforms below 600 metres outside of Ireland and the UK called mountains as well. I don't know what the problem is to just include landforms that are called mountains. I am keeping a WP:NPOV view here as the category should be used fairly without bias. Volcanoguy 08:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The point which the text acknowledged clearly. And since there is no universal definition, there can be no such thing as a NPOV - wherever we decide the lower cutoff is will be our POV. In my case, I have based it on the only official definition I can find, backed up by a Dictionary of Geography source; you've just fixed it at 1 m, since no cutoff means anything counts. So several hills were included in the category that even failed the old US definition of a mountain being 1,000 feet and others were part of "Foo Hills" , so clearly not considered mountains either. There's not much point having a category if people can't see what's "in" and what's "out" of it. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: I am still in disagreement with you. If a geographic feature is known as a mountain it's a mountain, simple as that. As a result such things belong in mountain categories, including Category:Mountains under 1000 metres. You are defining what a mountain is based on an Ireland/UK definition, which is a bit on the POV side since you are not representing a worldwide view on the issue. If there is no universal definition for something you are not supposed to use a definition that is only for two countries in Europe. To tell you the truth there are geographic features called hills that have elevations greater than 600 metres as well. What are you going to do there? Volcanoguy 14:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If a mountain is known "by whom" as a mountain? Is the Teckberg a mountain? The Täfelberg? The Wilseder Berg? And having listened to your argument, I've moved on from using the UK/Irish definition guideline universally and changed the guideline to absolutely reflect a worldwide view - inviting other editors to suggest refinements. Of course, you will always get the occasional hill called "Foo Mountain" and occasional mountain called "Foo Hill" but then a Bombay Duck is not a duck... --Bermicourt (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I should have said that I also replied to your comments on the talk page of the category - you may not have seen my latest form of words which are genuinely trying to be inclusive of different national perspectives. Bermicourt (talk) 14:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

On 18 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Belle of Temagami, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Belle of Temagami (pictured) was the largest vessel ever to cruise Lake Temagami? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Belle of Temagami. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Nazko Cone lava flow.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 17:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Nazko Cone tephra.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 17:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Pyramid Dome.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 21:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Williams Cone.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 09:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:White House Bluff.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 09:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Symmetrical Eve Cone.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Volcanoguy. I just want to ask that it is possible that Edziza volcanic complex may related to tephras QUE-1859 in Greenland ice-core? "Timing and climate forcing of volcanic eruptions for the past 2,500 years" noted that chemical of tephras in depths of 327 m (536 AD) similar to those of volcanoes in Cordilleran Volcanic province (Edziza).

The chemical of tephras QUE-1859 sio2 tio2 al203 feo(t) mno mgo cao na2o k2o 62.35 0.52 15.32 7.63 0.25 0.13 1.13 7.55 4.88

It is possible that Edziza volcano eruption caused the large Northern Hemisphere cooling in 536 AD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyu Lai (talk • contribs) 02:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Siyu Lai: It is a possibility but there are other large volcanoes in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province that have received very few studies (e.g. Heart Peaks and Level Mountain) so they could be potential sources as well. Volcanoguy 06:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Siyu Lai: If you have information about the Greenland ice-core being potentially linked to the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province please include it in the article. Thanks. Volcanoguy 19:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I have some information about the lake-core from northern British Columbia that linked to Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province. "Holocene tephras in lake cores from northern British Columbia, Canada" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siyu Lai (talk • contribs) 00:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Siyu Lai: I created Finlay tephras five years ago if you want to improve it. Volcanoguy 01:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Level Mountain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greenstone. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for stepping in and finishing the task! I can only do about 300 at a sitting, and then my eyes go cross. (Perhaps you did a smarter thing -- you're only doing the replacement, while I turned on genfixes).

Looks like we'll be done very soon! Congratulations!

I'll soon be taking a wikibreak for the end of the year, so in case you finish and I'm not around:

1. User:Hike395/MtnComboBox should be ready to go.
2. Copy User:Hike395/MtnComboBox to Template:Infobox mountain/sandbox and check out Template:Infobox mountain/testcases for any errors
3. Copy User:Hike395/MtnComboBox to Template:Infobox mountain range/sandbox and check out Template:Infobox mountain range/testcases
4. If everything looks ok, replace the contents of Template:Infobox mountain up until the <noinclude> with User:Hike395/MtnComboBox. This requires template-editor rights or higher -- if you don't have that, glue the <noinclude> stuff after the MtnComboBox code, and do an edit request at Template talk:Infobox mountain
5. Then, turn Template:Infobox mountain range into a redirect to Template:Infobox mountain
6. Done, drink a Molson! :-)

Thanks again for finishing this! —hike395 (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hike395: No problem. I copy and pasted MtnComboBox to both mountain and mountain range sandboxes but I am having trouble replacing the contents of Template:Infobox mountain. Volcanoguy 03:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that's because you're not a template-editor. But I am! Let me do steps 4 and 5, and then we'll be done and we can both have a Molson!! —hike395 (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Woo hoo! Let me know if you see any problems. —hike395 (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hike395: I updated Level Mountain this month if you need an example of a massif. Volcanoguy 05:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Level Mountain you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The article Level Mountain you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Level Mountain for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

On 2 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Level Mountain, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Level Mountain is the most voluminous and most persistent volcano in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province of North America? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Level Mountain. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Satah Mountain volcanic field, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Volcanoguy, see my answer and question here. Sémhur 19:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

For my mistake on the Nazko earthquake article. I got mixed up and marked the wrong reference. If you take a look at reference number seven here 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes#References it goes to this 404 message. So I don't mess thing up any further could you take a look and see if you can fix it or at least apply a "dead link" tag. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 20:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: I added the "dead link" tag to the proper reference as I don't have time to try and fix it right now. Volcanoguy 20:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks V. MarnetteD|Talk 23:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Back in 2008, you created the article Warden Peak as well as other articles of Vancouver island mountains. An IP just removed statements that the peak (as well as other Vancouver Island mountains) was a volcanic plug. I checked the reference and did not see any mention of volcanic origin. Just an FYI. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I just reverted the IP's edits to Haddington Island and Twin Peaks. As far as I am aware of their claim that there are no volcanoes on Vancouver Island is false. According to reliable sources Twin Peaks and Haddington Island are part of the Alert Bay Volcanic Belt, which formed as a result of volcanism along the Cascadia subduction zone. Volcanoguy 14:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Potato Range —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Volcanoguy, I know this is very much your specialist area, so whilst I made comments earlier (forgot to log in so it was just a pair of IP edits) on the garibaldi range talk page, perhaps I should clarify it and ask you, whether anything needs doing, or if I've just got the wrong end of the stick :) I saw a video of a landslide on Mount Currie that someone said was actually associated with the 'pemberton caldera' which attracted my attention as I wanted to debunk their assertion that this might be an upcoming mass wastage eruption trigger. So a quick wikipedia search led me to the following articles

Mount Currie (British Columbia), Pemberton Volcanic Belt, Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, Coast Mountains, Garibaldi Ranges,Pacific Ranges and a few hot spring articles including Boulder Creek (Lillooet River) which seems likely connected to the same Pemberton volcanic belt

Now the Mount Currie article says it is the northernmost of the Garibaldi range, but that article doesn't mention Mount Currie, nor does the Garibaldi ranges article mention the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt - which seems like an ommission - but perhaps they just have similar names and are adjacent I've misunderstood? A few of the other articles look like they could have blue links added that point to the volcanic article. I'm tempted to just start on that but I don't want to accidentally step on your toes there at all EdwardLane (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@EdwardLane: Hi. I'm not really understanding what you're trying to tell me. All the articles you linked are for different features. The Garibaldi Ranges and the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt have similar names but they're both different geologically. There are some volcanoes in the Garibaldi Ranges that are part of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt (e.g. Mount Garibaldi, Mount Price, The Black Tusk) but the Garibaldi Ranges are mostly made of older uplifted non-volcanic rocks. This also goes for the Pacific Ranges and Coast Mountains. It's the same thing with the Andes and the Andean Volcanic Belt; a geological feature overlapping with a geographical feature.

As far as I know Mount Currie is not volcanic and I have never heard of the "pemberton caldera", nor do I know of a caldera near Pemberton. The Garibaldi and Pemberton belts are two different but related features, although their northern limits overlap each other. The Boulder Creek article clearly states the hot springs are related to volcanism of the Mount Meager massif, which is part of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt. I hope I cleared some things up for you. See the Canadian Cascade Arc article for more. Volcanoguy 03:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - that clarified the picture in my head somewhat - I feel the garibaldi range article (along with most articles about mountains) could probably do with a paragraph saying something much like this block quote from the cascade volcanoes article)

Although taking its name from the Cascade Range, this term is a geologic grouping rather than a geographic one, and the Cascade Volcanoes extend north into the Coast Mountains, past the Fraser River which is the northward limit of the Cascade Range proper.

Which serves to link the geography to the underlying geology - perhaps (in this case) something along the lines of 'the Garibaldi Ranges, and the overlapping Garibaldi Volcanic Belt both take their names from the volcano Mount Garibaldi, but the Garibaldi Ranges are mostly made of older uplifted non-volcanic rocks, ...... and then I don't know enough to finish that paragraph - are all the volcanics from the volcanic belt inside the geographically described garibaldi range, presumably the belt is caused by back arc volcanism so they mostly run parallel and to the east of the subducted/uplifted rocks? - or do they extend outside that area? hope that makes sense - I get mightily confused when trying to look at a mountain and finding that there is no detail about the geology, unless I hunt around a bunch of other articles nearby. EdwardLane (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@EdwardLane: No, the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt has a greater extent than the Garibaldi Ranges. Compare File:Vancouver Island-relief GaribaldiRanges.png red outline with File:Garibaldi Volcanic Belt-en.svg. You will see the "Mount Garibaldi area" is the only portion of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt inside the geographical boundaries of the Garibaldi Ranges. The Garibaldi Belt itself is a volcanic arc; back-arc volcanism is represented by the Chilcotin Group. Volcanoguy 16:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi! You created this article years ago, and I wanted to confirm that a correction I just made is right. I think when you wrote "Madalena Radial Dike Swarm (southeastern Wyoming)", you really meant "Magdalena radial dike swarm (central New Mexico)". "Madalena" really puzzled me for a while, as there seemed to be nothing I could find with that name in Wyoming. Could you confirm that the Magdalena dike swarm was really the one you meant? Thanks for checking. — Gorthian (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gorthian: Hi. To be honest I can't remember. When I created the dike swarm article I just did a quick Google search for "dike swarm" and "dyke swarm" then added the ones I found in the examples section. Volcanoguy 00:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair. I think my correction (also based on a Google search) can stand, then. Thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Volcaoguy: just wanted to thank you for providing reference suggestions to my student editing the Pali Dome article. Your interaction and enthusiasm for the topic is appreciated. Happy editing! BCarmichael (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You could heavily improve Gahcho Kué kimberlite pipes, for example.--Kopiersperre (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 1996 Rocky Mountain House earthquake. Since you had some involvement with the 1996 Rocky Mountain House earthquake redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Dawnseeker2000 21:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Volcanism of Canada Workgroup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Heya. Not sure how active you are these days, but I remember you wrote a bunch of stuff about British Columbia volcanism and are obviously way more knowledgeable than me on the topic. Well, I was writing a page for the Bell-Irving River, a tributary of the Nass River, and in researching I came across this article: Overview of the volcanology of the Bell-Irving volcanic district, northwestern Bowser Basin, British Columbia: new examples of mafic alpine glaciovolcanism from the northern Cordilleran volcanic province, and thought of you. Apparently this volcanic district was only discovered and researched recently, mainly 2002-2004 I think.

Anyway, I mentioned it briefly in my river article but thought I'd pass it on to you, in case you don't already know about it. The topic is mostly way over my head, but cool. Cheers. Pfly (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pfly: Hi, sorry for the long delay in getting back to you. I had forgotten about this until I came across the Bell-Irving volcanoes in a book recently while searching for information to rewrite the Hoodoo Mountain article. There should be more than enough information to warrant the Bell-Irving volcanic district an article. Hope you are doing well, I don't see you on Wikipedia much anymore. Volcanoguy 04:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Heh, I had forgotten about it too. It's true my Wikipedia work dropped off quite dramatically some years ago, but I am doing well! Now and then I get the bug and do a flurry of edits and stuff, but it rarely lasts long and has mostly been about early contact-era PNW maritime history and less about geography where we might cross paths more. Nonetheless I have a long list of things to do here, articles to make, etc, and will likely be around for a long time, if less actively than I once was. In any case, I hope you are doing well too. Nice to say hi. Sounds like the border may open soon. I hadn't been to BC for too long even before Covid and there's a million places I want to visit. I'll try not to be part of the inevitable wave of American tourists overwhelming BC after the border opens. Here in Seattle we're already overwhelmed by tourists from all over the US. For some reason it seems everyone is eager to get out and travel right now, lol. Brace yourselves. Pfly (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pfly: You've become less active and I've become more active lol. What a strange coincidence. Wikipedia has been keeping me busy this year, having made over 6,000 edits thus far. I'm still working on stuff about British Columbia volcanism. Level Mountain was brought up to FA class this month and I'm hoping to do the same for Mount Price and Hoodoo Mountain. I also started an article for the Bell-Irving volcanic district after remembering when you brought it up here on my talk page. Do you plan on becoming more active again? It seems that lots of users I worked with in the past have either left Wikipedia or their activity level has dropped off dramatically. Volcanoguy 04:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Volcanoguy: That's awesome that you're doing so much. I looked at some of the articles you've been working on, high quality stuff. I was never able to do all the work required to reach FA, at least not on my own—I helped with Columbia River and got to see how the process works from the inside. On my own, I got Maritime fur trade up to "good", and that was itself a lot of work. In fact, it kinda burnt me out for a while. I'm much better at starting articles lol. I have a long list of redlinks that I plan to make pages for. I seem to be an expert procrastinator and have acquired several other time-consuming "hobbies" lately, but I do want to do more to improve Wikipedia. After all, this place is even more important now as a way for people to get information than it was ten years ago, and there is still a ton of stuff that ought to be better. And it is still the only major website free from corporate, commercial control. The community's freely-given, democratic, collaborative, consensus-based, good faith assumed approach is like the early 90s dream of what the Internet could be. It's pretty amazing that it works and has stayed true to its principles. ...damn, you've made me want to get more active. I think I'll go look at those redlinks... :-) Pfly (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pfly: I'm generally not this active; the average number of edits I make per year is about 1,000. My lowest edit count was 333 when I became a Wikipedia user in 2006. Yes I have written many GAs as well. If I remember correctly, I started writing GAs first then FAs afterwards for more of a challenge lol. Writing GAs and FAs burn me out for a while as well. In fact, Level Mountain was the first article I brought to FA since 2010. By the way, you do not have to ping me on my own talk page; I receive notifications automatically when a user comments here. :-) Volcanoguy 17:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm messaging to ask whether you might be interested in being an editor for the WikiJournal of Science (www.WikiJSci.org)? It's a journal modelled on the successful Wikipedia-integrated medical journal (www.WikiJMed.org). The editorial board is covers a range of fields and expertise.

It couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. It is therefore an excellent way to achieve public engagement, outreach and impact public understanding of science (articles often get >100,000 views per year).

Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as directly into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards academics with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

Based on my experiences, time commitment is pretty flexible. An editor would generally devote 2-10 hours per month to inviting suitable submissions and organise their external peer review:

• Identify fully missing Wikipedia topics and invite academics to write broad review articles on them (e.g. this)
• Identify important, but poorly covered topics and invite experts to update or overhaul them (e.g. this)
• Invite authors of good Wikipedia pages to put their articles through external peer review (like this)
• Possibly implement some figure or gallery review articles (e.g this and this)

Hopefully it will help to get experts, academics and professionals to contribute content to the encyclopedia via a more familiar and cv-rewarding academic journal format.

Anyway, let me know if it's the sort of thing that might interest you. PS. A relevant article in Science.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC), edited 11:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: I realised I missed out some links in the message above, so I've taken the liberty of editing the previous message. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

On 8 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Northeast Arm Iron Range, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Temagami Iron Range takes jasper in iron past snakes and turtles? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Northeast Arm Iron Range. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Northeast Arm Iron Range), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you up for another go at FAC for Mount Meager? I think, with a decent copyedit, it could be ready. ceranthor 16:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I'm up for it. Just did some updating in the article. Volcanoguy 18:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I just need to look through the previous FAC and make sure everything from there has been fixed. Then, I'd be happy to run through and copyedit it more thoroughly. ceranthor 18:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: BTW would you be interested in bringing Level Mountain and/or the Anahim hotspot to FA? I'd say they're almost ready. Volcanoguy 22:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Volcanoguy: They both look like they're in good shape. I'd probably need a week or so before I can commit to FA work, but I think I'd be willing to help out. Content wise they both seem comprehensive though. ceranthor 23:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I noticed this, " This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the United States Geological Survey.", at the bottom of the article. Does it directly quote any public domain material? ceranthor 22:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes or at least it did when I updated the article before nominating it to FAC. Volcanoguy 00:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

At my latest FAC for Three Sisters (Oregon), this came up, and the reviewers didn't think it was appropriate to incorporate public domain material into a featured article. Do you remember which bits use public domain material? ceranthor 03:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I have yet to see any policies explaining why PD material is inappropriate in a featured article. If that were true then PD photos would not be appropriate either. Volcanoguy 04:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:PD: "For all practical purposes on Wikipedia, the public domain comprises copyright-free works: anyone can use them in any way and for any purpose." Volcanoguy 04:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Are you planning to submit to PR first, or straight to FAC? ceranthor 22:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

It's up to you. Volcanoguy 04:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to post some comments to the article's talk page, but I think it's in great shape. A peer review probably isn't necessary. ceranthor 04:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: That would not be necessary right now because I am going to rewrite the article. Would you be interested in reviewing it at GAC? Volcanoguy 16:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I might be a bit too involved at this point, but I'd be happy to help with the nomination. ceranthor 16:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong discussion I was referring to Cayley haha. Volcanoguy 16:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

'''[[User:Volcanoguy|<font color="red">''Volcano''</font>]][[User talk:Volcanoguy|<font color="black">''guy''</font>]]''' : Volcanoguy

to

'''[[User:Volcanoguy|<i style="color: red;">Volcano</i>]][[User talk:Volcanoguy|<i style="color: black;">guy</i>]]''' : Volcanoguy

—Anomalocaris (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris:  Done. Thanks for the heads-up. Volcanoguy 00:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I posted some comments to Meager's talk page. Let me know what you think. Are you still intending to take Mount Cayley to good article status? ceranthor 21:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not plan on taking Mount Cayley to GA status any time soon. It would probably have to be rewritten. Volcanoguy 22:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think it would have to be rewritten? ceranthor 23:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I will start on Cayley once I get Level Mountain and the Anahim hotspot articles to FA. Volcanoguy 16:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

BTW Ceranthor if you plan on bringing any more volcano articles to GA or FA just notify me. Not sure how much help I can give but I will try. Volcanoguy 17:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The only one I'm working on towards FA right now is Harry R. Truman. I'm going to continue working on Cascade Volcanoes GA's; my hope is to get them all to GA by the end of February or March. ceranthor 17:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Well you have a whole lot of volcanoes to go through then; see List of Cascade volcanoes. I have listed Level Mountain for peer review before I nominate it to FAC. Volcanoguy 17:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Ceranthor seeing that you continue to bring Cascade volcano articles to GA, Mount Price (British Columbia) would probably not be too difficult. I was aiming for an FA when I rewrote that article five years ago but I will help bring it to GA. Volcanoguy 10:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Great, I'd be happy to collaborate. ceranthor 14:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ceranthor I just thought you would like to know that I am collecting information to update the Cayley article. Volcanoguy 17:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

So what's the status of Cayley/the Mount Meager massif articles? Are you looking to take either or both to FAC? ceranthor 01:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not plan to take either one of them to FAC and probably never will. Volcanoguy 07:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That's fair - what about GAN? ceranthor 18:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I plan on taking Cayley to GAN but not right now. Volcanoguy 18:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Great - let me know if you want any help when you have the time to nominate it. ceranthor 15:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: After I rewrite and restructure the Cayley article I plan to move the page to "Mount Cayley massif" for the same reasons as Meager then make Mount Cayley its own article. Volcanoguy 17:16, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Just recently updated the Mount Cayley massif article. Any ideas for GAN? Volcanoguy 08:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Reading through it now - looks pretty good. I'll make some edits where I see fit, but feel free to revert if they're wrong / you disagree with my changes. ceranthor 20:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

What is your reason for changing 4,000,000 to 4 million? Volcanoguy 21:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

That's just my preference - MOS:NUMERAL allows either. If you prefer spelling it out everytime, that's fine, I just think it's easier for the reader to spell out million instead of putting the number. I think it's ready for GAN. ceranthor 22:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is now at GAN. Volcanoguy 10:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I'm gonna see if I can find enough information for Opal Cone to bring it to GA. Volcanoguy 14:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Awesome! Let me know if you need help getting any papers. ceranthor 23:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I was not planning to rewrite or expand the Franklin Glacier Complex article but I did it anyway. Not sure if it's capable of becoming a GA. Volcanoguy 07:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit short, but I see no reason why it cannot become a GA. Go ahead and nominate it! ceranthor 15:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably not going to nominate it until Cayley is reviewed/passed. I do not want several GANs at this time as I might be taking a wikibreak for the summer. Volcanoguy 02:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm hoping to be productive once I finish Mount Mazama - it's taken four months, but I'm nearing completion finally... ceranthor 17:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Melville Peak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King George Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Volcanoguy. Thanks for the refinement of categories-- they are not something to which I pay much attention.

A question: I have often seen the North Shore Volcanics dealt with together with the Duluth Complex, likely because of their temporal and geographic proximity. And North Shore Volcanic Group redirects to Duluth Complex. I hope the text is sufficiently clear, but suggestions and edits would be welcome. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I just realized who you are-- Hello again! It's been a while since our paths crossed. Kablammo (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kablammo: maybe the volcanic categories can be placed in the North Shore Volcanic Group redirect? Volcanoguy 14:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I suspect the Category folks would not like that, but I don't know. As I mentioned above, I don't do much there-- it seems that there are way too many categories. Kablammo (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi.
I am currently working on an article about James C. King. I found out that James King seamount is named after him. I was wondering if there is anything about this seamount on enwiki, or some other wikipedia. There are some refs about it like this, and that. But I am not sure if they are WP:RS as I am not much familiar with this field. Also pinging Ceranthor. Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 17:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Try searching for James King seamount at the NOAA gazetteer. That should do the trick. ceranthor 19:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: You can also find James King Seamount in GeoNames Search. Volcanoguy 19:36, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Denudation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Cruz Province (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

On 14 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2010 Mount Meager landslide, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2010 Mount Meager landslide was one of the largest in Canadian history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2010 Mount Meager landslide. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2010 Mount Meager landslide), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Ritchie333 (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I've merged the edit histories for you. Bearcat (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Thanks. I'm curious as to why prominence is shown in the infobox when there is no prominence field filled. Volcanoguy 13:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't figure that out either — I'm not particularly knowledgeable about how {{infobox mountain}} is coded, since it's not my area of expertise. One thing you could try is to post a question at Template talk:Infobox mountain to see if people who are more actively involved in using and adjusting that template can help you figure it out. Or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), if the template talk page has too much of a history of having questions go unanswered. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bearcat: I figured it out. Turns out I had to click "Wikidata item" in the left sidebar then remove the prominence. Volcanoguy 14:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Yeah, that makes sense. Wikidata is getting used enough now for enough purposes that I should really start getting into the habit of thinking to check it when there's a weird problem like this that I can't figure out! Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

might be the occasional small problem - the mining project seems to have not had adequate project tagging for some years - if at all JarrahTree 12:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mount Cayley massif you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ceranthor -- Ceranthor (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Volcanguy, I posted comments today. ceranthor 18:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The article Mount Cayley massif you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mount Cayley massif for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ceranthor -- Ceranthor (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

On 12 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mount Cayley massif, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Mount Cayley massif (pictured) in British Columbia has been investigated as a potential geothermal energy resource? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mount Cayley massif. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mount Cayley massif), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Precious

volcanism across Canada

Thank you for quality articles around volcanism in Canada such as The Volcano (British Columbia), 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes, Jack Souther and Mount Cayley massif, for service from 2006, - Wikipedian against notability, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks and thanks for the DYK review. Volcanoguy 22:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2023 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I apologize if this is not the correct way to do things, but the byzantine ways of communication here are . . . well, byzantine. This is regarding the Cayley massif mK-MK issue.

Dr. Gregory Retzlaff

Postscript: I want to append to my above message rather than change. Is there a way to private message someone rather than editing their talk page??

OK, so I guess this is the way to communicate. I just want to let you know what happened with this daniel0wellby guy. BTW, I have a physics PhD (Univ of Sask) with lots of experience in cryogenic systems, and even worked at TRIUMF at UBC.

Cruising through the Cayley massif article I noticed the gradient in MegaKelvin/meter. Obviously wrong, and I figured a m<->M confusion on someone's part. I thought it would be a trivial first edit for me. An hour later, daniel0wellby 1) changes it back to Mega (even though the references shows milli) and Mega should be obviously ludicrous, and 2) then chastises me for not having references for my change. I was a bit cheesed off, saw no way to message anyone, blundered across the tearoom and slightly vented. Then I notice that this Daniel guy is a loose cannon on Wikipedia, check his talk page. After my banishment, I changed it back to Mega since everyone seemed to think Danny was a good boy. A true storm in a teacup. Anyway, since you seem to be the power that is on the Cayley article and BC geology in general, I wanted you to know what transpired. If Daniel does not realize a thermal gradient of MegaKelvin/meter in a mountain is not ludicrous, he should not be editing these types of articles.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.125.246.81 (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey, just checking in to see if you're working on/up for taking on any more volcano articles. I'm currently slogging through Boring Lava Field, which has turned into quite a beast as far as geology / eruptive history go. I've taken care of the less technical sections, but I might end up reaching out to you if I come across anything that I can't figure out on my own. Hope all is well. ceranthor 18:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Not working on any articles at this point but give me a shout if you need help. Volcanoguy 15:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The article 1997 Cap-Rouge earthquake has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or as list entries. Our efforts are instead being focused on creating complete, interesting, and encyclopedic articles that require significant coverage. This one fails multiple aspects of WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines because of the following concerns:

• One heart attack (not directly related)
• No papers from the scientific community

This USGS entry for the event tells part of the story:

• M 4.8 - St. Lawrence Valley region, Quebec, Canada – United States Geological Survey

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dawnseeker2000 10:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dawnseeker2000: You could be doing something more constructive than deleting articles. Volcanoguy 21:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. You may be interested in this thread. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

You disputed a description in this article. Akld guy provided sources. The sources support the content. If you have any remaining concerns, please use the talk page. However, I suggest this is dead horse territory, and you shold drop the stick.-gadfium 22:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gadfium: Akld guy should at least explain how Rangitoto is an iconic landmark of Auckland rather than just claiming it's iconic. Volcanoguy 23:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The place to hold that discussion is Talk:Rangitoto Island.-gadfium 01:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Volcanism of Canada, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Volcanism of Canada and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Volcanism of Canada during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Volcanogenic lake requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks for this. I hadn't had the time to tag it for speedy deletion. Volcanoguy 01:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You recently participated in a discussion on the title of the Whakaari/White Island article. I have made a formal WP:RM request at Talk:Whakaari/White Island if you care to weigh in. —  AjaxSmack  17:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on WPCOMMONNAME requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to vote for the current article title in the poll, if you think that's acceptable. — hike395 (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} and include a citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Sorry I didn't think adding attribution was necessary. I also wasn't aware of the {{PD-notice}} template. Volcanoguy 16:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any sources on Newberry Ash (Member)? Leitmotiv (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: No I do not unfortunately. I'm guessing this is an ash deposit erupted from the Newberry Volcano in Oregon? Volcanoguy 21:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Seems like there should be some literature out there. Newberry ain't a small volcano, but it's ash deposits aren't nearly as widespread as Mazama.

Greetings,

out of curiosity where does the title "Seewarte Seamounts" of Seewarte Seamounts come from? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Marineregions.org Volcanoguy 20:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Now one wonders where that in turn came from... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The name "Seewarte Seamounts" also appears on Google Earth. Do you have doubt about the name? Volcanoguy 23:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

No, just curiosity as I can't find many sources who use that term. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 07:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It may have something to do with the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency of Germany, which was at one time called the Deutsche Seewarte and possibly was a result of soundings taken during the German Meteor expedition - complete OR on my part of course. Mikenorton (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sixty Mile is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixty Mile until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Biscuit3413 (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Volcanoes of Ellsworth land requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Quick facts Two years! ...

Precious

Two years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a BC radio program looking for an interviewee. Do you have any interest? -- Zanimum (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Volcanoguy, I noticed that you corrected an error that I made on several hot springs articles where I mistakenly added WikiProject Volcanoes to the talk page(s). In the future, if you see that I have made a mistake (esp. if it is one I made more than once!) please reach out to me on my talk page, and I will gladly correct my errors. That was a lot of work that you did, and I thank you for it and owe you a big favor! Netherzone (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Netherzone: No problem. Just make sure you check the project's scope before adding the template to more articles. It clearly states that many common hot springs, especially those where nearby volcanic activity is absent, should probably not be included. Volcanoguy 15:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 12#Category:Historic volcanic events. IMHO Category:Ancient volcanic events is more useful than Category:Historic volcanic events. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: Says someone who probably knows nothing about volcanology. Volcanoguy 08:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I was looking at the articles you made about the Fogo Seamounts. I noticed the seamounts have a reference to a Canadian city with roughly the same area in km². I personally don't think this is the best way to convey that kind of information, because it's almost impossible to 'imagine' the area of a city. This is for a large part so because the official area of a city is almost always quite "random": a city with a huge urban area can officialy be quite small; while some very small cities can officially be enormous in size.

You could give multiple completely different sizes for "Calgary" with none of them per se being wrong – it depends purely on interpretation (official land area, urban area, wider metro area, downtown area etc.?). In my opinion it would therefore be far more logical to compare a seamount to a 100% clearly defined geographical enitity such as a country, province or island. To give an example: instead of Birma Seamount being as large as Calgary, I would say that Birma Seamount is as large as Singapore.

What is your opinion about this?

Friendly greetings, Ycleymans (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ycleymans: Unfortunately, I am not aware of any reliable sources that compare these seamounts to 100% clearly defined geographical entities so I cannot make such comparisons; doing so would fall under WP:OR. Volcanoguy 00:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Volcanic eruptions has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Beland (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)