User talk:MSGJ

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello MSGJ. 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)

Controversy

Can you copy paste controversy section in draft in ERA article? It was better. I have made edit request. [1] --TheSawTooth (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nikthestunned edits on corporate page

Hi there,

Without prejudice. We have noticed you have made continuous removals of any content on the article. Please explain why the article is not allowed to include any other details other than the contraversies section? For example; Other locations, charitable work, data protection events with local law enforcement, etc. Why are all the references constantly deleted and removed, as per Nikthestunned desires.

To both of you. I am just facilitating changes supported by consensus. If you want the article changed in any way, you'll need to discuss on the talk page (not here) and establish consensus for them. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_114#Distinguishing_between_New_Pages_Patrol_reviews_and_AfC_reviews

Hey MSGJ. I just closed the above discussion, but noted comments that newer editors may be confused by the term "patrolled." While I have no alternative phrasing that would be any better off the top of my head, I think it would be helpful to wikilink the term "patrolled" to WP:NPPLOG or possibly m:Help:Patrolled edit. This seems relatively uncontroversial, and would let folks have some context for what that term actually means. Thoughts? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi I JethroBT, and congratulations on your recent RfA. Actually I thought that I had closed that discussion by implementing the consensus. It doesn't always need a colourful box you know :) Anyway thank you for endorsing my close and I have no objections to linking "patrolled" if you think that would be helpful. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And yes, I definitely agree with you about the "you don't need the colorful box," sentiment. I like to think editors can often work things out themselves without someone outside needing to assess things. It's not a great explanation, but before I was an admin I was reverted a few too many times when I have expressed this and refused to close certain requests at WP:ANRFC that were basically taken care of. I suppose I am motivated to avoid escalating that discussion by simply closing them. That said, I think I'm in good standing to put my foot down on the issue finally, so thank you for the kind reminder. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom Elections - broken template

Martin, perhaps you would edit this Template:ACEcan2014 so that it works properly. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean the voting link?  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. You see how discussing changes with someone first always works wonders ? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

:) My pleasure. Is this a reference to [2] by any chance? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate article

Hey on the gamergate article you should make 8chan link to 8chan in the lead. thx :) 71.169.181.208 (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

All changes must be discussed on the article's talk page, okay :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

talk page is locked, and is this really an edit that merits discussion? 4chan and reddit are linked to, why not 8chan? 71.169.181.208 (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for carrying out the edits to E-cigarette. But edit requested in OR accusations was not included in first revert. The line "With observable differences among various brands, drugs like rimonabant for weight loss and amino tadalafil for erectile dysfunction are included in the cartridge solution." can still be found in the e-liquid subsection. Thanks for your time and if this should have been placed elsewhere or if the request wasnt clear enough I apologize. AlbinoFerret 21:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, but the request was not clear to someone not familiar with the article :) I'll take a look again later. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably my fault, and I will remember to do that the next time a change has to be made to a protected page, this was the first time I have had to request edits. Whenever you get to it. AlbinoFerret 22:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No consensus

There were more than one RFC. There is no consensus to move the sections. See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Edit_Request. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The RFC found no no consensus for a medical order and the order it was in was POV driven.link There was rough consensus for the move. Late comers like yourself are now complaining. One problem about the move is that 3.6 Device generations 3.7 Atomizer 3.8 Power and 3.9 E-liquid were Sub sections of Construction, they were not moved.AlbinoFerret 21:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I see the majority of contributors making progress and reaching compromise, and 1 or 2 bleating "no consensus" from the sidelines, without actually specifying their objection to the proposed change. In these situations I give those objections the weight they merit. Of course, consensus can change and nothing is set in stone. But I believe the change was appropriate at this time. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. However as AF pointed out it looks like you accidentally left some sections that belong under Construction behind, so they're now under Health Effects. Those are 3.6-3.9. It would be great if you could move those. Thanks again!--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 21:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha, will do shortly. I was trying to sort everything out on Draft:Electronic cigarette first, obviously failed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. It's a mammoth article, despite most of the content being utter crap.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 22:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Would recommend you revert here [3]. The previous discussion was closed as no consensus.[4] It is currently 4 to 4. And the discussion has been one a grand total of ONE day. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No. this is the relevant RfC, and it found no grounds for retaining the medical ordering.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 06:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc James just tried to revert the page order. AlbinoFerret 19:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

One needs consensus for a change. "No consensus" means that change does not occur. It does not mean that User:FergusM1970 and User:AlbinoFerret should now edit war like mad to get their prefered version into place. Time to take this to ANI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who's edit-warring, Doc. I have asked for an admin to look into this.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So your solution is edit warring by reverting the page over and over? I think there is a problem here. AlbinoFerret 20:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus wept. So Doc James started an edit war and as a result the page has now been locked again, with his preferred version frozen in. MSGJ, any chance you could restore the edit from yesterday? Thanks.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 20:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There are now 5 against the change and 4 in support of it. MSGJ closing a discussion after 1 day is not appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Enjoy!

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine