User talk:MandyBarberio

Welcome!

Hello, MandyBarberio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Gas Detector[edit]

A tag has been placed on Gas Detector, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. – Tivedshambo (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial use of Image:USPSFlag1.PNG[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:USPSFlag1.PNG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:USPSFlag1.PNG has a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission, which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3). While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[1][2]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:USPSFlag1.PNG itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Brewing Time for Tea[edit]

Brewing Time for Tea, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Brewing Time for Tea satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brewing Time for Tea and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Brewing Time for Tea during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Rackabello 20:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of Brewing Time for Tea[edit]

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Brewing Time for Tea. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.englishteastore.com/flavonoids-tea.html in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Brewing Time for Tea with a link to where we can find that note;
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Brewing Time for Tea with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Brewing Time for Tea saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you want to edit constructively, take a look at the welcome page. Thank you. Realkyhick 20:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Brewing time[edit]

If you owned the copyright for the text of that article you should have put the template {{hangon}} underneath the speedy delete template {{db-copyvio}} and then written a statement on the article's talk page explaining the copyright status. This possibly would have saved the article from speedy deletion (suspected copyright violations are removed almost immediately to protect Wikipedia from litigation), however the article also had other issues as well, such as being promotional in tone (Wikipedia policy on spam and advertising) and containing unverified claims or claims based on personal opinion instead of claims based on verified sources (Wikipedia policy on original research) These would have been grounds for deletion after a discussion on the article had concluded. If you have any questions, feel free to ask and I'll help you the best I can Rackabello 17:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Remember to always sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) on talk pages

The article was deleted several days ago as a result of an article for deletion process, during which it was determined that the article was a blatant copyright violation. Moreover, the article would not have survived even if there were no copyright problems, due to lack of notability and apparent advertising. If you have truly useful information to add on this topic, I suggest you ad a section to the article Tea. Otherwise, do not attempt to re-create this article, or you will face being blocked from editing at Wikipedia. Realkyhick 19:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently I didn't make myself clear. The article no longer exists. There is nothing to remove the tag from. The AfD discussion must remain as is, as the discussion is a closed matter. I would be violating WP guidelines if I tried to alter it. Don't worry, no one will come after you, especially if you were the copyright holder in the first place. (I know that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but when there are laws and lawyers involved, that's often the case.) If I had known the page came from a site licensed under GFDL, I could've pulled the speedy-deletion notice, but again the article would likely have faced deletion on other criteria anyway. Again, the general subject of tea preparation is not without merit, and I suggest you consider adding a section to the main Tea article, or to articles about various tea varieties. Realkyhick 19:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're taking this a little harder than you should. Lots of people unknowingly violate copyrights here. Someone would have to go digging pretty hard to find it in the first place, as AfD discussions rotate off the AfD page after a week or so. An admin can find it, but they would also see this very discussion on your talk page and see your explanation, which should satisfy any admin. Unless someone makes a habit of violating copyrights on a regular basis, we don't really keep a "rap sheet." The easiest way to avoid the problem is either 1) don't copy material word-for-word from a page that is, or may be, copyrighted; or 2) if you are using information directly taken word-for-word from a page licensed under GFDL, indicate this in the "References" section of the article as well as properly citing it. Do either of those and you'll be just fine.(And have a cup of tea while you're writing. In fact, I'll think I'll go make one for myself. Mmmmm.) Realkyhick 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I'm a newspaper reporter, and at one time an editor as well. Since you are (I assume) the copyright holder, the only one you wronged is yourself. And I assume you're not going to sue Wikipedia. :-) Realkyhick 20:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very few people associated with Wikipedia are paid. Admins and even those up the food chain a bit are all volunteers. (By the way, I'm not an admin, though I've been encouraged to become one.) Realkyhick 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Lincoln assassination[edit]

Please do not remove the unreferenced section template from the Lincoln Flag section. Despite the fact that there are external links, it is not sourced with appropriate citations. Therefore the section is unreferenced. Just because you wrote the section does not confer ownership on you. Thank you. Ward3001 14:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to other problems noted, this section on the flag has nothing of value to add to the article Lincoln's assassination. Therefore, it does not belong. It might rate its own article, but I doubt it since the purpose of the section appears entirely self-promotional. Rklawton 15:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with Rklawton's good faith opinion that the Lincoln flag info should go in a separate article. My personal opinion is that it is appropriate for the Lincoln assassination article, and that there may not be enough information to merit a separate article. Perhaps a redirect of "Lincoln Flag" to the assassination article would be OK. But I think all of this is a matter of opinion. As long as the information is properly sourced I'm agreeable with either location. And I think if the only legitimate sources have advertisements, it's OK to cite those. Ward3001 19:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns:

Spam (but we're stuck with it because of the GDFL license unless we want to rewrite the section). Status: resolved.
Copyright - I saw the "copyright" tag at the bottom of the original article but missed the GDFL tag below the page. Status: resolved (my fault)
Reliable sources - the original article is not published in what we would call a reliable source. However, it cites other sources. I have not checked these sources. If they are reliable, then there's no problem. Status: to be determined.
trivia - given that the article is about the assassination and the section in question is about a flag's provenance, I don't think it's a good match. I would prefer to see a new article with a link to it in the "See also" section. Status: as Ward3001 aptly puts it, that's a matter of opinion - and mine is but one in a sea of many. Rklawton 21:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources[edit]

MandyBarberio indicated a need for info on citing sources. WP:CITE#HOW provides options appropriate for Wikipedia. Ward3001 00:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to handle repeated sources, but I know there is a way. When I get a chance I'll try to figure it out. I did some minor clean-up of the article. I changed the heading levels to conform to other Wikipedia articles. Links to other Wikipedia articles go in "See also." Links elsewhere go in "External links." If I changed something contrary to your intentions please change it back. Ward3001 22:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]