- December 16, 2006 - May 12, 2008
- May 6, 2008 - November 8, 2008
- November 12, 2008 - March 23, 2009
- March 24, 2009 - May 5, 2010
- May 4, 2010 - February 21, 2011
- February 21, 2011 - September 28, 2014
- 1 Blairmorite
- 2 Your GA nomination of Itcha Range
- 3 Your GA nomination of Itcha Range
- 4 Blairmorite Image
- 5 Disambiguation link notification for November 29
- 6 Interview for The Signpost
- 7 Hydrothermal vents
- 8 Your GA nomination of Itcha Range
- 9 Disambiguation link notification for January 6
- 10 Scientific notation
- 11 DYK for Maitland Volcano
- 12 Ray Mountain
- @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)
I haven't been able to find much in the literature about the petrogenesis of the Crowsnest Volcanics (CNV), which really surprises me, given that the mineralogy is so unusual and volcanic rocks are so rare in Alberta. The Bowerman article was the one of the best ones that I found.
I was one of the co-authors on a short article re the CNV for CSPG Reservoir (I don't know if it's appeared yet; I've been in the field all summer and have been pretty much out of touch). Here's an excerpt:
The Crowsnest Volcanics were laid down in a series of eruptions during Albian time. Radiometric dates range from about 93 to 101 Ma. Goble et al. (1999) concluded that alkaline intrusive rocks at Commerce Peak to the south near the Flathead River may have been associated with the Crowsnest eruptions, and Amajor (1985) concluded that the Crowsnest eruptions and/or vents close to them were probably the source of bentonites in the Viking Formation (subsequent radiometric dating shows a compatible date of 100 Ma for these regional marker beds). Palinspastic reconstructions indicate that the eruptions probably occurred in what is now the Cranbrook area. It's estimated that the volcanics originally covered an area of about 1800 km2 and their volume exceeded 209 km3. By comparison the damage area of the 1980 Mount St Helens blast was 600 km2.
I'd like to get down to check out the Commerce Mountain outcrops some time, but it's a bit remote with access via sometimes-active logging roads. Maybe next spring.Georgialh (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Georgialh: by the way, I have created an article for blairmorite. I am not sure if you are aware but I also started the Northern Alberta kimberlite province, Birch Mountains kimberlite field, Buffalo Head Hills kimberlite field and Mountain Lake cluster articles. Lately I have been working on British Columbia's Itcha Range. Volcanoguy 05:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Georgialh: it is also worthy to note I could not find much information about the origin(s) of the Northern Alberta kimberlites either. Perhaps volcanic rocks in Alberta have not been studied much because of their rarity? Volcanoguy 10:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, Alberta is indeed impoverished when it comes to volcanics. There's the CNV, the kimberlites, and maybe we can count the Purcell Sill. Other than that, there are beds of volcanic ash ranging in age from Early Cretaceous to Quaternary (e.g., the Mazama ash), but that's about it. You would think that the rarity would inspire Alberta's geology students to be fighting for the privilege of working on them, but I suspect that there's no funding for such things.
- As for blairmorite, I'm told that igneous rocks are supposed to be named for their minerals rather than for places, so blairmorite should properly be called analcimite. I haven't checked into that, though. And when asking around about the CNV I triggered a small dispute as to whether there are any actual "trachytic flows" in the CNV, or whether it's all pyroclastics. The question remains unresolved.
- I remember reading igneous rocks are supposed to be named for their minerals but is that an official policy? Are there any disputes over that policy? The name blairmorite for an analcime-rich volcanic rock goes back to the early 1900s. Also, kimberlite is named after the town of Kimberley in South Africa. Volcanoguy 05:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
- Now that I think about it, that can't be an official policy. There are too many igneous rock names to use mineralogy alone. Johannsen (1933) lists more than 1,200 names. I'll put his definition of blairmorite up on the blairmorite page. He says it was named by someone named Knight, and to see Johannsen vol IV, p. 256-260 for a full description, but I only have a partial photocopy of his Appendix III: Definitions of Rocks. I'll try to get to the Univ library one of these days and look it up.
- Bowerman, M., Christianson, A., Creaser, R.A. and Luth, R.W. (2006). "A petrographical and geochemical study of the volcanic rocks of the Crowsnest Formation, southwestern Alberta, and of the Howell Creek suite, British Columbia.". Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 43: 1621-1637. Retrieved 2013-11-03.
- (Leckie, D.A. 1993. A guidebook on Lower Cretaceous sedimentology and stratigraphy of southern Alberta - tectonic and eustatic implications and economic significance. Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 2683, 73 p.
- Goble, R.J., Treves, S.B. and Murray, V.M. 1999. Cretaceous intrusions in the Commerce Mountain and adjacent areas of southeastern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 36: 1939-1956.
- Amajor, L.C. 1985. Biotite grain size distribution and source area of the Lower Cretaceous Viking bentonites, Alberta, Canada. Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 33: 471-478.
- A. Johannsen, 1933. A descriptive petrology of the igneous rocks. 4 volumes. Univ. of Chicago Press.
Your GA nomination of Itcha Range
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)
Your GA nomination of Itcha Range
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)
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.
Interview for The Signpost
- 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)
Your GA nomination of Itcha Range
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.
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)
DYK for Maitland Volcano
|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.|
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)