User talk:Dusti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Signpost: 12 November 2014[edit]

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Dusti. 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 {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

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)

Non-admin AfD closure[edit]

Would you be willing to let an administrator review this AfD you closed? Given the widely varying opinions that are evenly split, and the narrow focus and readership of the media cited, I believe an administrator, preferably one who does not identify as part of the article subject's community, should review the evidence. I am asking per instructions on the deletion review page. Thanks. BruinsR4eva (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'll ping three admins that I respect and will reverse my actions at this time. @Wifione:, @Bbb23: and @Anna Frodesiak: would one of you be willing to review the AFD? Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Procedural keep. Wifione Message 15:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators#Non-administrator_arbitrators. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 20:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


Not sure if linking to your user page automatically informs you that you've been mentioned on a page, but I thought you ought to be made aware that I believe User:Lukejordan02 has violated the 0RR restriction against him with this edit. I don't think the content of Luke's edit was necessarily wrong, but the fact that he openly and aggressively reverted User:Qed237's edit is cause for concern. IMO, Luke isn't really getting the message about the proper way to behave on Wikipedia. – PeeJay 19:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)