Talk:Cilevirus

Copyvio
The copyright violation reported by the bot seems - to me anyway - to be a false positive. Firstly I had not read the article before the bot reported. I have now read the entire article and I dont see the violation - but maybe I am missing something. The phrases in the article are pretty standard - RNA, genome, segment, protein, poly adenosine tails etc - and I could potentially see how this might trigger a false positive. There is very little material on this virus and it would not be a major surprise if many of the same words occur on this page and the referred to article. The article itself is considerably longer than the current WP entry so if there is any overlap which has accidentally occurred then an violation would surely be 'de minimis'.DrMicro (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This page has now been reviewed by >50 editors. No changes have been made to date. This seems to suggest that the bot may have perhaps over called the copyright violation. For this reason I have removed the notice.DrMicro (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The lack of sources has been alleviated, the article has been expanded and copyright shouldn't be a problem Bervin61 (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)