User talk:Salimfadhley

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

Before you leave comments or feedback please login! Anonymous comments might be ignored!

Senior seminar PROD[edit]

Hi there. I saw that you had begun taking care of business over at Senior seminar, which was unilaterally undone without discussion, so I wondered if you were interested in escalating that or if you'd changed your mind. I was kinda learning about your process there, of addressing a subject which is completely common like a dictionary entry. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Salimfadhley: Hi there, just curious. Thanks! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 03:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for keeping you waiting. I think the article should be deleted. I don't currently have time to follow up on this matter. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Revertion of Proposed Deletion of Nerf Longshot CS-6[edit]

Hi, Salimfadhley! I saw your message about your proposed deletion of Nerf Longshot CS-6 on the 23 August, 2014. In the meantime, I added some references and reverted some deleted sources from Nikkimaria. I wanted to ask you if you could check the page Nerf Longshot CS-6 and if the sources are acceptable by Wikipedia policies can you remove the deletion proposal? Please contact me on my talk page if you have done it. — NerfersUnited (Talk) 3:41, August 26, 2014 (CET)

You need to find what we call Reliable Secondary Sources, unfortunately everything you have added is either a primary source (e.g. the Hasbro web-site) or user-created content (e.g. some other Wiki). You might want to refer to wikipedia's Notability guidelines which explain the rules behind what kind of content usually gets into Wikipedia. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


Trudy Harris[edit]

I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia format for communicating with other users but I assume I just write to you directly on your page. You have suggested that the Trudy Harris page be deleted, and have asked for sources. I thought I had provided sources in the initial article so I could us a little more info on why you think it should be deleted and how I can best work with you on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DirectorJones (talkcontribs) 19:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Salimfadhley. 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)