User talk:Brandonletsinger

Welcome!
Hello, Brandonletsinger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Introduction tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 personal help ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Schazjmd  (talk)  19:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate.

I'm happy to discuss this — I know one of the sources has a CC license but not a compatible one, and I still wonder if that source copied from Wikipedia.

S Philbrick (Talk)  13:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Your edit summary included:

> The link referenced is already used in this Wikipedia and others and is in the Creative Commons https://cascadiabioregion.org/copyright-information

I don't understand this means.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notes! I hope this is the appropriate place to reply, as I'm still a bit new - or should I reply directly on my talk page? Anyways - I saw your note, but maybe I'm having confusion with what the copyright issue is. The sources linked - cascadiabioregion.org et al, are in the Creative Commons, share alike with attribution / non-commercial use. I read the Wiki Copyright information on the top of the page and it seems to be perfectly OKay per terms of use. What I meant by already cited - was that the cascadiabioregion.org is already used as a source in the article, so I'm just trying to figure out why this specific page is being treated differently. Also, there are quite a few different sources cited, so if you'd like to point them out, I'm happy to remove them or find creative common variations that are more appropriate, rather than moving the whole blocks of texts. Brandonletsinger (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , in most cases, editors prefer to keep discussions together. If your response starts with a ping (see how this reply starts) I will automatically get notified. I copied your response to your talk page and will continue the conversation there. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think I finally figured out what was confusing me. The confusion arises from the fact that Wikimedia has an important project called Commons, which is mostly a repository for images that are licensed for use in all Wikimedia projects and elsewhere, and in some rare cases text is also included. I initially thought that's what you were referring to, but now I think you are referring to the fact that the material has a Creative Commons license, which is a whole different organization. However, that organization provides information about various types of licenses and isn't a repository for information so I don't think it makes sense to say something is "in the creative Commons". It would make sense to say that the material has a creative Commons license. However, some creative Commons licenses are associated with material that can be used in Wikipedia and some cannot. The specific one associated with the source of the text is labeled, as you note, "attribution / non-commercial". The noncommercial part is the problem, is that makes it unacceptable for inclusion in Wikimedia projects.
 * I understand you would be puzzled if you saw that material used elsewhere in Wikipedia. It is a common error for someone to see a creative Commons license and think that makes it acceptable. If you can point out other places that use this information, I will look into removing it.
 * There is no problem using such a location as a reference but you need to write the material in your own words. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no problem using such a location as a reference but you need to write the material in your own words. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no problem using such a location as a reference but you need to write the material in your own words. S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

great! thanks, this clarification helps. I'll dig back in when I have more time tonight and give another go, making sure everything is in my own words / in line with wiki policy. Brandonletsinger (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Cascadia Bioregional Party for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cascadia Bioregional Party 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 Articles for deletion/Cascadia Bioregional Party 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. --Finngall talk 17:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)