User talk:GarciaB

I have noticed that you have been editing and categorising various volcano and mountain articles. When looking at the main list of volcanoes I notice that you appear to be disambiging some peaks, but removing others entirely. You have removed a number of peaks in Antarctica and one in Argentina in your two most recent edits. Those places are volcanoes, so I do not know why you are doing what you are doing? Please let me know the motivation behind your edits. If you doubt they are volcanoes, please see the Smithsonian Institute website linked to at the bottom of the page. David Newton 12:30, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I said in my previous message, information about the systems you removed can be found at the Smithsonian Institute website linked to at the bottom of the list. For example, the Argentine system that you removed is certainly in the database. See here for the info on that system for example. David Newton 12:55, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Volcanoes and mountains

Please stop making all the volcano categories to be subcategories of mountains. Volcanoes are not all mountains — only many of them are. Many volcanoes are simply holes in the ground and such. Please remove the mountain categories from the volcano categories, and instead put the mountain categories on each of the individual articles for volcanoes that are also mountains. See Category:Volcanoes of New Zealand to see my point. - Gilgamesh 02:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kibo

I have no objection if you wish to make "Kibo" into a disambiguation page-- but I reverted your edit because it lost all the text on the Usenet person without moving it anywhere else, and without any discussion or explanation. You might wish to discuss on Talk:Kibo. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 06:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Smithsonian Institute Copyright

I notice that you have been making lots of new articles about volcanoes. It's good to see gaps being filled in with the coverage you are giving. However, there is one concern that I do have. Nobody has picked it up yet, but the Aracar article that you have created is a copyright violation. You appear to have cut and pasted the text from the Smithsonian Institute website. The SI is not a US Government body, and so its material is not public domain. See here Copyright Notice. I'm not sure how many of the other articles that you have created are ones where you have done that, but it will be picked up.

The site is a fantastic resource, and a lot of the images are public domain (the NASA stuff for example), but the text is not. When I use the site as a source I paraphrase the material. It can be very difficult to do sometimes as there are only a limited number of ways to express the ideas contained within the web pages on the individual volcanoes. However, it is something that we must do to avoid infringing their copyright. The most important thing to remember is the copyright protects a particular way of expressing an idea and it does not prevent that idea being expressed in another manner.

What certainly can be done with the text on the site is to harvest the raw facts, like height, location, volcano type, etc., and put them in the standard Wikipedia infobox. Again, facts themselves cannot be copyrighted, just the way of presenting them.

Thanks. David Newton 00:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The trouble with the example I have quoted above is that the entire main body of the article is the same as on the SI website. That's not just quoting small parts, that's out and out copying of it. Small quotations can be defended under fair use with US copyright law, but I do not believe that the Aracar article qualifies as fair use in that sense. It would be best if you went over the articles where you have followed the same procedure as Aracar and rewrote them. If anyone has inserted the copyvio boilerplate text then rewrite the articles on the /Temp page indicated. The tables are fine. The template for acknowledging the source is fine. It would appears that the photos are fine. The problem is the lifting of the whole text of the SI article about a particular volcano for the page. Don't let this discourage you. A lot of people make the same mistake about copyright. David Newton 01:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PD-USGov-(Interior)-USGS

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for uploading the USGS maps of mountains; they've very informative. Could you use the copyright tag {{PD-USGov-Interior-USGS}} instead of {{PD-USGov-USGS}}? It fits into a hierarchy of copyright tags. I've already changed over the ones you've uploaded so far and listed the template you made for deletion. grendel|khan 21:13, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

Topographic maps

Hi, Garcia. I've noticed that you've uploaded a lot of topographic maps. You probably don't know about the geolinks templates. Those are very useful templates that use external web pages to display topographic maps. It's better to refer to external topo maps for four reasons:

A small (200px) version of a topo map is impossible to read --- it doesn't add anything to the article directly, but simply serves as a link. Well, if you're going to make a link anyway, might as well make an external link (see below)
Wikipedia is not a collection of primary sources --- Wikipedia is not supposed to be a repository for large public domain media files. It can point to them and summarize them, but shouldn't be a mirror.
The web sites that serve up topo maps are much more interactive than a simple bitmap: readers can zoom in and out to look at different levels of detail.
The geolinks templates have links, not just to topo maps, but also to aerial photos and street maps. They are really quite nifty.

So, please consider using the geolinks templates, at least for articles about US geography. Thanks! -- hike395 14:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mount Tongariro map

I noticed you uploaded a map for Mount Tongariro at the Commons. Thanks!

I tried to locate the map at the Tongariro National Park site, and was unable to. Using Google search, the only copy I could find was at http://www.skimountaineer.com/ROF/ROF.php?name=Ngauruhoe . Is that where you got it from? It's probably a product of the New Zealand government (hence, is Crown copyright, not public domain). But, if you got it from skimountaineer.com, the origin is uncertain, and it should not be used.

Could you clarify its origin over at the Commons site? Thanks a lot! -- hike395 16:42, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Geo-stubs

Hi GarciaB - Just noticed your new articles on volcanoes in Alaska... good work! I changed the {{geo-stub}} messages to {{US-geo-stub}}, which is a better message to put on US geography stubs - it makes them easier to find for future work. Grutness|^hello? 03:35, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

:) ditto the South American ones with {{SouthAm-geo-stub}}! Grutness|^hello?

brackets

(Sorry for placing this on your user page earlier.) Hello, I like the work you're doing on vulcanos, but please note that external links should be done using one bracket on each side. Using double brackets is reserved for links within wikipedia. Happy editing! Mgm|^(talk) 11:29, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:TauFromSpace.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TauFromSpace.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Llullaillaco

Llullaillaco has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]