User talk:Legoktm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Userpage
Talk
Subpages
Barstars
User:Legoktm/Sandboxes
Contributions
Userpage
Talk
Subpages

Barnstars

Sandboxes

Contributions

Today's motto...
Littera scripta manet
("The written word endures")


GFDL[edit]

I've undone this edit to madam bot's exclude list. Sites now need to be licensed under CC-BY-SA (and optionally GFDL as well) and GFDL by itself is no longer enough. See Wikipedia:Licensing update#Content restrictions - I'm sure this has been documented somewhere better but as per usual tying to find it is difficult (Wikipedia's help/information system is atrocious and must be a nightmare for new users but that's a discussion for another day).

Legobot Archive Indexing[edit]

Is there any chance of this task running again? It's been quite some time since it last ran, and there doesn't appear to be another bot around to do it. demize (t · c) 15:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If there's no chance of you getting it running again, I think I'll work on getting a bot running to do it myself. It's something a lot of people seem to want, and I wouldn't mind writing a bot to do it. But if you're planning on getting the task running on Legobot again, then I'll leave it to you. demize (t · c) 14:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-47[edit]

18:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Legoktm. 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)

Tech News: 2014-48[edit]

19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Legobot & {{Template:GAReview|status=}} question[edit]

Hi Legoktm.

I had a question about Legobot & {{Template:GAReview|status=}}. I tried putting {{Template:GAReview|status=2nd opinion}} onto Wikipedia:Good article nominations for Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014. Legobot changed it to {{Template:GAReview}}. Is there some syntax that I can add to Talk:Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014/GA1 that would result in '|status=2nd opinion' being added back to the Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014 entry on WP:GAN#GOVT? Or do I need to do some other action?

Peaceray (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)