Topic on User talk:DannyS712/Archive 1

revdeleting recent spam as "copyright violation"

6
Bawolff (talkcontribs)

Hi,

I was kind of wondering why you're using "copyright violation" as the revdeletion summary for the recent spam, since it doesn't appear to be a copyright vio so much as regular spam.

Cheers, Brian

DannyS712 (talkcontribs)

The summaries contain excerpts of the same copyrighted content Sorry, misunderstood; I was also revdeling the edit summaries. The content appears to be copyrighted, based on earwigs analysis; after a few checks comparing the edits to the source, I just assumed that all of the spam was similarly copyright violating. I checked a few later to double check, and earwigs confirmed that it was copyrighted

Bawolff (talkcontribs)
DannyS712 (talkcontribs)

Ahh, I didn't see that. Thanks for pointing it out. Sorry, this was my first major anti-vandalism operation as an admin, and I didn't take the time to research further. Should I undelete the edits? Thanks again

Bawolff (talkcontribs)

I'd just keep it the way it is - its not worth worrying about - its just spam after all. :)

DannyS712 (talkcontribs)

Well, thanks for pointing it out. I'll try to slow down in the future; thanks for your help with that (as well as others)