User talk:Dr meetsingh/Archive 3

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular. The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered. If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.) If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with. Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors. I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC). Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 Wikification drive.
Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the April drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

June 2015 Wikification drive.
Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the June drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) &#34;A wiki of beauty is a joy forever.&#34; Seriously. That&#39;s how long it&#39;d take to read! (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

February 2016
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved by another user. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. - the WOLF  child  10:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Need Help
hi Dr meetsingh, i need a help from you. In article of Bhagat singh in his early life it has been written " Bhagat singh a sandhu jat" (what thus it means?) it creats a misleading among readers, "Jat" is divided into three categories Sikh Jat, Muslim Jat and Hindu Jat. Bhagat singh was born in a Sikh jat family, when i edited this "Bhagat singh a sandhu sikh jat" there was a revert with the reason that he was an atheist and he never claimed that he was a Sikh. By seeing this point i edit one more time that " he was born in a Sikh jat family (as everyone knows)" with a source and later on he had become atheist. But again it is reverted, this edit-revert game (Edit war) was keep on going for several days as a result i was "Blocked". After Block has expired the talk has been started on this issue on Talk:Bhagat Singh where i come up with a proper reason and sources and they come up with an excuse. they argued that he never claimed he was a sikh (I agree) but he never too claimed that he was jat (only jat). I argued that "Bhagat singh a sandhu jat" means nothing and it is misleading where as we should change by editing that "He was born in a sandhu sikh jat family" but they have not replied till yet.

so i need your help to please support me on this issue on Talk:Bhagat Singh so that the talk reach its conclusion and change the article as it is misleading. here are the sources that clears that he was born in sikh jat family. Please see           .As i mentioned first, the first three sources they come up with an excuse that it is a weak source because it is a Newswebsite (but already there are many sources from newswebsite that has already mentioned in a Bhagat singh). then i came up with another source which is based on a book and they have not replied yet.

so, i need your help to please come and support me on this issue on Talk:Bhagat Singh--Jagat jit singh (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)