The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Daniel. No further edits should be made to this page. For a list of archives for this user, see User talk:Daniel/Archive.

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.

← Archive 94 · Archive 95 · Archive 96 → Hello Daniel/Archive. 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).[reply]

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is to inform you that Central Coast Mariners FC, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 16 December 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your kind words, Gerda Arendt. Daniel (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Awesome Wikipedian" *childish giggle* —Dark 11:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato, tomato ;) - I've changed it to 'injury time'. Thanks. GiantSnowman 12:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I never even saw your deletion tag until after the article was deleted, if you could please put the contents of the article somewhere I can get to it (in a new sandbox or somewhere) I would appreciate it, as I never even had a chance to respond - strange as I check my Watchlist virtually every day. Thank you. FourTildes (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FourTildes, no problems - User:FourTildes/Silverwolf Comics. Regards, Daniel (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you deleted Dixie Marshall today with the comment "Unreferenced BLP", but it never showed up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Article alerts. You aren't doing out of process deletions, are you? I thought we were moved past that unilateral approach years ago, and hence now have WP:BLPPROD to take care of them, or standard PROD if they predate BLPPROD. So, please undelete, she's notable and will be referenced, if the correct procedure is followed. The-Pope (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it in response to an OTRS ticket.

If you want to create a fully-referenced, neutral article, then you are welcome to go ahead. The article in its deleted form had neither of those two elements (neutrality or referenced content), and there was no 'safe' version to revert to, hence the deletion. Daniel (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, but please, in future, state that it was via OTRS, CSD:A7, G10, or G9 or whatever, in your deletion comment. Sorry you didn't like my tone, but I don't recall if you were involved in the previous UBLP deletion debacle 5 years ago, and I still have a sour taste from seeing admins think that they are above the community consensus on what should be deleted. We have a bunch of approved, agreed deletion policies and processes and I'm yet to see any reason why anyone should deviate from them. I'm not going to go running AN/I or anything, but it was out of process, as unreferenced BLP articles are still not grounds for speedy deletion, despite many previous attempts to add them to the list. Not being able to see the article nor the history, I'll have to AGF that you couldn't find a "safe version", but normally you can gut the article down to the bare non-contentious facts if the subject objects. And as she is a political staffer now, it's another reason to not make unilateral decisions, as who knows what motivated the OTRS ticket. We don't normally agree to delete articles upon request. We edit them, and this article only had the UBLP tag on it for about one week, which is the only way I found out about it. The-Pope (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Yaesu FT-290R article has been deleted (redirected) after an AFD. I was not aware of the deletion proposal, even though I have that article on my watchlist. Why was a link to the deletion discussion not placed in the article at that time, in which case I would have been alerted? I have no particular views either way (except that I do own one of them...) but it seems to have been done without most people being in a position to comment. You also need to change the link at Yaesu (brand) which currently links to the now redirected article. Dsergeant (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dsergeant, a link was placed in the article when the discussion began for both articles: 290R on 24 Jan, 901 on 16 Jan. Daniel (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Smith (soccer) as delete, however it was later restored at DRV under the article name Tommy Smith (footballer born 1990) which was later renamed Tommy Smith (footballer, born 1990). However the edit history of the version you deleted was never restored. Can you merge the original edit history into Tommy Smith (footballer, born 1990)? Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.