User talk:SecretName101/Archives/Archive 3

A complete list of archives of this talk page may be viewed here.

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)

Speedy deletion declined: Fu bo
Hello SecretName101. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fu bo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Redirects are never eligible for A3. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's fine, as at the point I tagged it for speedy deletion it was not yet a redirect, and had no content whatsoever on the page. Since it was since made a redirect, I completely understand.SecretName101 (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It was indeed a redirect when you tagged it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but when I edited through Igloo, Igloo displayed it as being a new article that featured no content at all. It might have been edited in the intermediate between when I loaded the page on Igloo, and when I tagged it for speedy deletion through Igloo.SecretName101 (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry again, but I might have been in fact misreading Igloo. If that was the case, my fault entirely.SecretName101 (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)