User talk:Coren/Archive Jan 2008

wikipedia entry for "Isydore Hlynka"

I received a message that the new article that I posted is essentially the same as that of http://www2.uwindsor.ca/~hlynka/isydore.html

That is correct. I am the author of both, and thus there is no copyright violation. I have posted this comment to the discussion page of the "Isydore Hlynka" article. This is my first article. Is there something else that I must do to prove there is no copy right violation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fibon112 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with, today it's the turn of the "B"s and "C"s! I'm hoping at least one of you chaps will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but scary! :) ++Lar: t/c 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Mirror site detected by CorenSearchBot

Your bot detected a mirror site and tagged an article as a copyvio based on that mirror site. (diff) The URL it detected was http://www.pontefract-yfc.co.uk/wiki.php?title=Matilda_Hunter, which is on a site that seems to mirror all Wikipedia articles and update them continuously; it even mirrored your bot's notice! You'll probably want to add this website to the bot's list so that it won't detect these pages in the future. Thanks, Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done — Coren ^(talk) 17:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The mirror is now on the list of exclusion, but the reason why it was mirrored in the first place is because it mirrored a previously deleted copy of the article, which had been deleted as a copyright violation of www.backtothebay.net/cast/bio/hunter_matilda.shtml; which is still was. I have deleted the article accordingly. — Coren ^(talk) 18:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

BOT tagged Appointment with Danger

I just started a new article and only added names of characters and crew, a small intro, and the article got tagged by your BOT. Come on this is clearly wrong. No specific content was snatched from IMDb. Can you correct this or will I be getting tagged every time I start a new film article. Let me know! Thx. ♦ Luigibob ♦ ^{"Talk to Luigi!"} 18:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll "2nd" my opinion there, that cast lists clearly aren't (c) material. However, I've seen tons of articles with other items 'cut and paste' directly from ImDB, such as "plot summary", "plot synopsis" and "user comments" that clearly are (c) violations. Don't know what can be done to rectify this, as the latter do need to be tagged as (c) violations, but basic information such as dates, cast list, etc. definitely aren't (c) material. SkierRMH (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but no bot is smart enough to make the difference between the two— hence it flags the similarity for human review. — Coren ^(talk) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Assistance required in case of User:Smsarmad

Hi Coren/Archive Jan 2008, I think you are supporting a master puppet account, User:Smsarmad. I would be happy if you would review this: Sockpuppets @ User Talk:UzEE. I have listed some evidence there. Thank you. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 00:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, new here...

Hi Corey I am new and attempted to post my bio on here and it deleted it because it claims I voided a GFC type agreement, after going through the site I found out since I am the author for the text that also appears on my thedjlist.com/djs/Wolf page. How do I go about getting this back up? Thanks a million for the help! - Jim DJ Wolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ69wolf (talk • contribs) 05:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say

that you are simply awesome, I love your work, your bot, and this edit summary.

(barnstar moved to my user page in the more modest "display case")

Thank you; it's appreciated. — Coren ^(talk) 06:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just an aside, I accidentally left the wrong diff up there, I corrected it. ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 10:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I'll steer clear of User:Duchamps_Comb. Sorry this wasted your time. I need to walk away from that AfD anyways, as you can obviously tell.

--- tqbf 06:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it is best to just walk away. Politics and religion. Make a good argument, and trust that the closing admin will read the arguments and not just count the socks; we do try hard to do this right, after all.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 06:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Coren, I hope in the phrase "count the socks" you were not referring to a sockpuppet, (an online identity used for purposes of deception). Which would insinuate that people voting on that AfD were being disingenuous?--Duchamps_comb MFA —Preceding comment was added at 21:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not insinuating anything, I am outright stating so. — Coren ^(talk) 22:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that is the case then maybe you should forward your opinion/proof to the admin who handles that AfD to find the alleged sockmaster(s).--Duchamps_comb MFA 00:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

North Western Road Car Company (1986)

Your bot was technically correct, being ultra quick on the draw. Next time I shall consider editing in a different order when demerging an article :) Divy (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If You Could Say It In Words

I am the producer of the movie and responsible for all content on the website. I recognize what I will need to post on the external site to allow direct quotes; therefore, for now, I will merely link to the website for the synopsis. All other content on the site is not copywrite infringement.

Adam. Aeisenstein (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User:ClaxsonUnit

I blocked it because it is similar to User:Claxson, a sock master, and may cause confusion (or it may just be a sock of that person).   jj137 ^♠ 00:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Karmaisking

Hello. Would you like to comment on that user's latest unblock request? Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Medal of Honor recipients

I wanted to let you know that your bot is kicking back results of possible copyrighted material when I add medal of Honor reipients with the Home of Heroes site. All Medal of Honor citations are on the U.S. Army Medal of Honor Website, which is free source and can be used freely.--Kumioko (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tata Dindin page

hi, your bot wrote:

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Tata Dindin, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.last.fm/music/Tata+Dindin. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

this is true, congrats. However, that site, last.fm, has a wiki, too, and it's GFDL'd (or similar). In fact, a lot of the content there is copied from wikipedia. Please re-instate my Tata Dindin page, or tell me what to do.

thanks, --Doceddi (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the edit link: http://www.last.fm/music/Tata+Dindin/+wiki?action=edit you see this:

All submitted content remains copyright of the author, and is licensed under the GFDL.

I think that qualifies as explicit permission.

thanks for your efforts

--Doceddi (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot complicates article splits

In the process of splitting Semaphore into flag semaphore, semaphore line, and Railway signal#Mechanical signals, I found that your bot blanked one of my articles, since I hadn't deleted yet the original. The original article, however, does include template:splitsection, and I think your bot should be able to recognize that. For the rest, I don't think this bot was such a bad idea, it just needs some perfecting. --Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The bot shouldn't be able to blank anything. Can you provide me with a diff so I can track this down? — Coren ^(talk) 19:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the exact moment the article was blanked. [1]. Obviously, it was someone else's doing. No, I hadn't looked into it before, I simply supposed that the message I was getting, and what was on the page 60 seconds later, were in reference to the same thing. Sorry about that.--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. For future reference, however, what you've been doing has another problem altogether. By copying the contents of Semaphore into Semaphore line you would be loosing the edit history which is a big GFDL no-no. The correct way of doing a disambiguation like that is to move the article into its new title and replace the then-created redirect with the disambiguation. — Coren ^(talk) 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa wait. I can't move the article towards two places, or can I? (that's why I'm splitting it like this) --Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, and that's a GFDL headache. As a workable compromise, history should follow the bigger part; and the paste over the created redirect is made to contain a wikilink to the new name so that history can be followed (manually). My understanding is that this was the case, although I haven't looked at all the history of what exactly you have been doing — I might have mistaken which was the bigger part.

It's too late now to make the move (if it's still warranted) by a non-admin (because of the existing target), but I'll do it for you if you need. — Coren ^(talk) 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Semaphore line is indeed the biggest part. Tell you what: I expect to be done with Semaphore line in five minutes. At that time I'll paste the contents of Semaphore line over the main Semaphore page (without the "in use" template) Do you think you could do the delete/move/whatever it is you do/ for me then? I'd appreciate it if you also don't leave a redirect at Semaphore, because I'm going to move Semaphore (disambiguation) towards there.--190.74.108.43 (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The redirect gets created automatically upon a move, but I'll delete it to make room. Just say the word once you're ready. — Coren ^(talk) 20:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ready--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

All done. Remember to link to the Semaphore line history. — Coren ^(talk) 20:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That was fast! Thank you! er.. what do you mean "link to the history"?--190.74.108.43 (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A linke like this so you can jump straight from history to history — but don't worry about it; this is strictly a convenience and not a requirement. — Coren ^(talk) 20:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Elmer (disambiguation)

Regarding this comment on my talk page, the "source" identified for this potential copyright violation is itself nothing more than a copy of the Elmer article in Wikipedia, that I was splitting to separate the name content from the non-name content. older ≠ wiser 19:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, copy of copy. Just remove the tag and go on, human reviewers are much smarter than the bot and will understand what you're doing.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 19:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

List of revolving restaurants

I've removed your bot's tag from List of revolving restaurants - the page in question is a mirror of the revolving restaurant page, from which this list was previously removed and which I have reinstated as this new page. Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Căprioara River

I have found another Căprioara River which is refered to as the Căprioara River (Mureş). The name of the existing Căprioara River has been changed to Căprioara River (Priboiaşa). After checking if there are any other rivers of this name a disambiguation article will be posted.Afil (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arpa International Film Festival

The text was in a press release, so it should be fine to use. --RaffiKojian (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no it is not. Press releases are still copyrighted and copyable only under certain restrictions — the GFDL isn't one of them. In addition, press releases do not conform to the policy against advertisement. — Coren ^(talk) 02:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Psyché play v. Psyché opera

I was in the process of breaking a single large article about two different works into two articles when I got hit by the bot. Basically, the article said that the two were often confused, and then proceeded to talk about them both, back and forth; I thought it would be helpful to separate them. So, there was duplicate info for maybe 5 minutes as I moved sections from one article into the new. I don't think that I need to move the talk page as I think this is a new article, not a move or merge. (unsure???) Portia1780 (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response! In my original edit, I said that this was broken out from Psyché and I added a chunk to the discussion page explaining what I did. Hope this is okay! Still learning the ropes around here and have already made the copy/paste faux pas once... Portia1780 (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I just put the link to the original article, not the history. Thanks for the guidance. Portia1780 (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Thunders - Schneckentaenze LP

Regarding:

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Schneckentaenze, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.thunders.ca/discs/schneck.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

My post is simply the proper tracklist for the LP. There is really no other way to list it. MG196 04:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry about it — bots are diligent but quite dumb and doesn't know what needs to be pretty much copied verbatim. — Coren ^(talk) 04:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arb cases

See [2]. Normally we leave them up 7 days, but yea this is not likely to get accepted. Link is how to close rejected cases. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

?Copyvio on Bristol University Botanic Gardens

Hello, I’ve just had this: "I have performed a web search with the contents of Bristol University Botanic Gardens, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/BotanicGardens." from CorenSearchBot. . I don't know whether it's a copyright violation or not; I just moved the content here from the List of botanical gardens in the United Kingdom, where someone had put it. I think the subject deserves a page, so I'll check it out and re-write it if needed, though I'm tied up at the moment. When does it need to be done by? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(my previous reply has disappeared; don't be surprised if it turns up somewhere)

Anyway, I've checked this; it is a direct lift, so I've sent a note to the original editor (User:Buaes; his talkpage). Also, I've added the website as an external link. If there's no response, I'll have a bash at it meself. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 22:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Abdelqader uploading copyvio astro images

Abdelqader appears to be uploading copyrighted astronomy images and miss-tagging them. I don't have time to properly pursue this myself right now.

• Image:Ic443_wide.jpg claims GFDL, but [3] asserts "all rights reserved".
• Image:Ic443-fov.jpg claims PD-self, but I doubt Abdelqader is actually the author.

—Ryan (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin

I appreciate the offer, but I'm happy just as I am. If the new non-admin Rollback feature comes up, I'd be interested in that, but otherwise, thanks, anyway.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 22:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had too many conflicts and haven't written many articles, none of them featured status. Too many strikes against me for an RfA, I'm afraid. Thanks, though. Corvus cornix_talk 22:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tata Dindin page

hi, your bot wrote:

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Tata Dindin, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.last.fm/music/Tata+Dindin. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

this is true, congrats. However, that site, last.fm, has a wiki, too, and it's GFDL'd (or similar). In fact, a lot of the content there is copied from wikipedia. Please re-instate my Tata Dindin page, or tell me what to do.

thanks, --Doceddi (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the edit link: http://www.last.fm/music/Tata+Dindin/+wiki?action=edit you see this:

All submitted content remains copyright of the author, and is licensed under the GFDL.

I think that qualifies as explicit permission.

thanks for your efforts

--Doceddi (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot complicates article splits

In the process of splitting Semaphore into flag semaphore, semaphore line, and Railway signal#Mechanical signals, I found that your bot blanked one of my articles, since I hadn't deleted yet the original. The original article, however, does include template:splitsection, and I think your bot should be able to recognize that. For the rest, I don't think this bot was such a bad idea, it just needs some perfecting. --Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The bot shouldn't be able to blank anything. Can you provide me with a diff so I can track this down? — Coren ^(talk) 19:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the exact moment the article was blanked. [4]. Obviously, it was someone else's doing. No, I hadn't looked into it before, I simply supposed that the message I was getting, and what was on the page 60 seconds later, were in reference to the same thing. Sorry about that.--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. For future reference, however, what you've been doing has another problem altogether. By copying the contents of Semaphore into Semaphore line you would be loosing the edit history which is a big GFDL no-no. The correct way of doing a disambiguation like that is to move the article into its new title and replace the then-created redirect with the disambiguation. — Coren ^(talk) 19:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa wait. I can't move the article towards two places, or can I? (that's why I'm splitting it like this) --Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No, and that's a GFDL headache. As a workable compromise, history should follow the bigger part; and the paste over the created redirect is made to contain a wikilink to the new name so that history can be followed (manually). My understanding is that this was the case, although I haven't looked at all the history of what exactly you have been doing — I might have mistaken which was the bigger part.

It's too late now to make the move (if it's still warranted) by a non-admin (because of the existing target), but I'll do it for you if you need. — Coren ^(talk) 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Semaphore line is indeed the biggest part. Tell you what: I expect to be done with Semaphore line in five minutes. At that time I'll paste the contents of Semaphore line over the main Semaphore page (without the "in use" template) Do you think you could do the delete/move/whatever it is you do/ for me then? I'd appreciate it if you also don't leave a redirect at Semaphore, because I'm going to move Semaphore (disambiguation) towards there.--190.74.108.43 (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The redirect gets created automatically upon a move, but I'll delete it to make room. Just say the word once you're ready. — Coren ^(talk) 20:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ready--Once in a Blue Moon (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

All done. Remember to link to the Semaphore line history. — Coren ^(talk) 20:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That was fast! Thank you! er.. what do you mean "link to the history"?--190.74.108.43 (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A linke like this so you can jump straight from history to history — but don't worry about it; this is strictly a convenience and not a requirement. — Coren ^(talk) 20:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Elmer (disambiguation)

Regarding this comment on my talk page, the "source" identified for this potential copyright violation is itself nothing more than a copy of the Elmer article in Wikipedia, that I was splitting to separate the name content from the non-name content. older ≠ wiser 19:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, copy of copy. Just remove the tag and go on, human reviewers are much smarter than the bot and will understand what you're doing.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 19:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

List of revolving restaurants

I've removed your bot's tag from List of revolving restaurants - the page in question is a mirror of the revolving restaurant page, from which this list was previously removed and which I have reinstated as this new page. Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Căprioara River

I have found another Căprioara River which is refered to as the Căprioara River (Mureş). The name of the existing Căprioara River has been changed to Căprioara River (Priboiaşa). After checking if there are any other rivers of this name a disambiguation article will be posted.Afil (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arpa International Film Festival

The text was in a press release, so it should be fine to use. --RaffiKojian (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no it is not. Press releases are still copyrighted and copyable only under certain restrictions — the GFDL isn't one of them. In addition, press releases do not conform to the policy against advertisement. — Coren ^(talk) 02:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Psyché play v. Psyché opera

I was in the process of breaking a single large article about two different works into two articles when I got hit by the bot. Basically, the article said that the two were often confused, and then proceeded to talk about them both, back and forth; I thought it would be helpful to separate them. So, there was duplicate info for maybe 5 minutes as I moved sections from one article into the new. I don't think that I need to move the talk page as I think this is a new article, not a move or merge. (unsure???) Portia1780 (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response! In my original edit, I said that this was broken out from Psyché and I added a chunk to the discussion page explaining what I did. Hope this is okay! Still learning the ropes around here and have already made the copy/paste faux pas once... Portia1780 (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I just put the link to the original article, not the history. Thanks for the guidance. Portia1780 (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Thunders - Schneckentaenze LP

Regarding:

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Schneckentaenze, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.thunders.ca/discs/schneck.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

My post is simply the proper tracklist for the LP. There is really no other way to list it. MG196 04:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry about it — bots are diligent but quite dumb and doesn't know what needs to be pretty much copied verbatim. — Coren ^(talk) 04:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arb cases

See [5]. Normally we leave them up 7 days, but yea this is not likely to get accepted. Link is how to close rejected cases. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

?Copyvio on Bristol University Botanic Gardens

Hello, I’ve just had this: "I have performed a web search with the contents of Bristol University Botanic Gardens, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/BotanicGardens." from CorenSearchBot. . I don't know whether it's a copyright violation or not; I just moved the content here from the List of botanical gardens in the United Kingdom, where someone had put it. I think the subject deserves a page, so I'll check it out and re-write it if needed, though I'm tied up at the moment. When does it need to be done by? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(my previous reply has disappeared; don't be surprised if it turns up somewhere)

Anyway, I've checked this; it is a direct lift, so I've sent a note to the original editor (User:Buaes; his talkpage). Also, I've added the website as an external link. If there's no response, I'll have a bash at it meself. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a good New Year, --Elonka 22:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Abdelqader uploading copyvio astro images

Abdelqader appears to be uploading copyrighted astronomy images and miss-tagging them. I don't have time to properly pursue this myself right now.

• Image:Ic443_wide.jpg claims GFDL, but [6] asserts "all rights reserved".
• Image:Ic443-fov.jpg claims PD-self, but I doubt Abdelqader is actually the author.

—Ryan (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin

I appreciate the offer, but I'm happy just as I am. If the new non-admin Rollback feature comes up, I'd be interested in that, but otherwise, thanks, anyway.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 22:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had too many conflicts and haven't written many articles, none of them featured status. Too many strikes against me for an RfA, I'm afraid. Thanks, though. Corvus cornix_talk 22:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ţerova River

Two different rivers. Afil (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy Name of Jesus Catholic Church

I developed the article for this in my sandbox, then copied it to a real article. Apparently this is so rarely done, the bot considers it a copyright violation? Couldn't the bot be modified to allow copying within Wikipedia? Student7 (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a nasty bug I'm still fighting with. It shouldn't find user space articles at all. Sorry about the trouble. — Coren ^(talk) 18:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Computer Science and Computer Applications UIL Contests

The two are different contests. I'm using the Computer Applications format to create the Computer Science article, and was currently in the middle of things when your bot came by. Tell your bot Happy New Year and hopefully he will like the finished product. Quidam65 (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Aherm

How did you guess? ;-) WjBscribe 20:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot caught a mirror (@ 1596 in science)

CorenSearchBot misidentified 1596 in science as a copy of http://www.prescriptiondrug-info.com/drug_information_online.asp?title=1596_in_science which appears to be some sort of live mirror of Wikipedia. It even included the copyvio notice before I removed it from the article. --Mrwojo (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's... impressively fast! Usually, when CSBot points at a mirror as copyvio, it turns out the article existed before, was mirrored, then deleted. It doesn't appear to be the case this time. What I'm wondering is how that mirror ended up in a search result so fast! — Coren ^(talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot still detects copies from one own sandbox

I recently submitted an article called Jefferson Park (Metra-CTA), that I had planned to merge two different articles into, and assumed that it was stamped with a copyright violation. Upon closer examination, I realized it was detecting a copy from my own sandbox. After searching through the talk page's archives, I found that I wasn't the first user to have this problem, and you told that user you would try to fix it before the holidays. How are you doing with that glitch so far? ----DanTD (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Real life concerns prevented me from working on it before the holidays.  :-( I've got a new version I'm pushing tonight that should fix the problem with a ugly workaround. — Coren ^(talk) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Contributions from a range of IP addresses?

I don't know why I think so, but I suspect you would know. Is there a way for us non-admin types to look at all contributions from a range of IP addresses? I'm nearly convinced that User:Teddy Bairz and User:Tracy Foster are one and the same user, and that the sea of edits I see coming from 4.0.0.0/8 whenever they start seeing the false information they insert into articles reverted are simply that user trying to reinsert the data anonymously. I'd love to just be able to pull up a list of contributions from that dial-up pool and see what he's been up to on any given day. Obviously, stepping through 16 million contribution pages one by one isn't the answer I'm looking for.Kww (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, that's not possible outside a direct query to the database from the toolserver, and that doesn't give diffs only edit summaries. — Coren ^(talk) 05:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration clerk

I'm going to list you as a trainee clerk based on your request and FT2's recommendation (he says you also contacted him). Keep track of the noticeboard where we coordinate stuff. Thatcher 04:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tall Timbers

I created Tall Timbers Plantation (Florida) (originally Tall Timbers Plantation) and Tall Timbers Research Station and Land Conservancy some time back. Some other user merged the two. Now, these are two distinct articles by their very nature. The first encompasses the history of a working quail hunting plantation and the land it occupies. Theres also upcoming information I've acquired to enhance this article further. The latter article deals with a well known science-based research and learning facility in Leon County that happens to occupy the same property. I feel that because the names are similar and both properties occupy the same land, that does not qualify them to be merged. I live in a development called Killearn Lakes Plantation created from Kinhega Lodge. Now for instance, if an article were to be written on Killearn Lakes (doubtful), merging with Kinhega Lodge would in essence wreck the article. Furthermore, if every piece of land that changed hands and names were merged, I believe articles would be of lesser quality. I've written all of the plantation articles for Leon County and only a couple survive with the original names and none with merges to a another article. There are links to refer readers to what the plantations have changed to. Noles1984 (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

I'm wondering why some comments got moved to the talk page? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Because Scott5114 is listed as a party, but his comment got moved to the talk page. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yousurp site fools bot?

Hi,

It looks like the quick action of the Yousurp site confused your bot into thinking that my article Interlingua and the characteristica universalis compared was a copy of an external article, when the reverse was actually true. The external article is here: http://yousurp.com/interlingua-and-characteristica-universalis-compared. The Yousurp site seems to make copies of Wikipedia articles as soon as they're created.

There was an earlier version of my article that was deleted. However, I think the quick action of the Yousurp site is the explanation, since it's mentioned in a footnote to the copied article. I'll delete the tag in a moment.

Nicely done though! Lumturo (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Appreciate the backup. Should there be any policy wonkery, here is the specific justifiable backup, since it was an ArbCom remedy. Antandrus (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot

Your bot says that information copied from Wiktionary word for word is a copy-vio. You should make wiktionary and other sister projects exceptions, as they are licensed under the GNU license. Thanks! Malinaccier (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyvios

Hey, I don't know how your bot works, but I was looking at Chief Garry, and a section begins with "Compiled by www.SpokaneOutdoors.com", which just makes it easy to presume there's some copyvio going on. But it's a big article, and was wondering if there's a way the bot can figure what, if anything is vio in the article. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Starpointe

the article is NOT a copyright infrangement. it's a direct quotation first of all, uses a parenthetical. secondarly i did use my own words to say the second sentence, and i have been expressly authorized by both the lable owners and the webmaster to include the lable in wikipedia. plese remove the tag and let the content be seen from everyone. thanks. afterall it's information about what starpointe is...

Starpointe (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Starpointe

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		I don't know what went wrong, but it's for this edit summary :-)-- Phoenix-wiki 12:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Rejected cases

Rejected arb cases can be archived here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rejected_requests#January_to_March. There is a link to it in the instruction section of WP:RFAR. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Which case do you mean? BlueAzure is already over there— is there another I should archive? — Coren ^(talk) 13:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, we both made minor goofs. ;-) I didn't see that you'd archived it but the reason is that the newest rejections go on top and you'd put it below Lavvu, so I just moved yours above Lavvu. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can not get to IRC right now. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Koniowo and other Polish villages

Have removed copyvio tag from Koniowo. It was not a duplication or copy violation - the articles are very similar simply because they were created by the same bot based on the same schema. The same situation will probably arise in relation to other Polish localities whose articles are created by this bot.--Kotniski (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Business Motivation Model

Xactandy (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Hi, Xactium gives full permission for the information on the Business Motivation Model to be reused from the flagged website

82.38.173.173 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Coren, can you tell me why you deleted the Business Motivation Model page when I explicitly granted permission??

As stated on your talk page, the site itself needs to show the permission grant, or alternatively you can follow the procedure in the policy about granting formal permission to Wikipedia (that, as a minimum, requires an email to the foundation help desk). — Coren ^(talk) 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Action in the Afternoon Article

Good Afternoon,

I am the original author of the text found at http://www.broadcastpioneers.com/bp3/aita.html and as such authorize the publication of this article on Wikipedia.

William Bode Director, ACTION IN THE AFTERNOON Billy Bodaceous (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

People not reading messages

You mentioned on WP:AN that people were ignoring the notice at the top of your page. The reason is simple: it's unreadable: a massive block of text surrounded by two distraction boxes. --Carnildo (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's odd. It doesn't render that way either in Firefox (Linux and Windows) or IE7 for me. Out of curiosity, which browser are you using? And which skin did you set? — Coren ^(talk) 01:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the combination of window width and font size on my computer: all the lines are about the same length, and word-wrapping turned it into a solid mass of text instead of five distinct lines. It looks better on a different computer, but the presence of the {{talkheader}} and {{AutoArchivingNotice}} templates around it still make it harder to read. --Carnildo (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell the truth...

...I bet you also think a bot could solve all the problems in the Middle East too, don't you.  :)

Yeah, but it'd probably need to be flagged 'crat for that.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously though, thanks for the input on my suggestion at WT:AN. I know this much --> 1/(∞-1) about how bots work, but having seen a few in operation, it seemed like something that could be done. have a good weekend. --barneca (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment/R. fiend

Thanks for your input on the talk page. Just to clarify: would it be in order to put the whole of that statement on the RfC page, or would it be better to put a short summary with a pointer to the full statement on the talk page? If the whole thing, should I cut if from the talk page or leave it on both? Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, normally you want to support your position with diffs, as you have done, on the main page. Keep to the same format the others are and you'll be okay— I see no reason to keep your statement on the talk page if you moved it to the main page, though. — Coren ^(talk) 16:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay if I delete your response at the same time, then? Scolaire (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. That was strictly for your benefit. — Coren ^(talk) 16:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again. Scolaire (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles drafted in sandboxes

Re this edit. Yes, the article I created is a direct copy of my sandbox, as this is where I drafted the article. I suspect a lot of articles are formed this way. Is it possible to adjust the bot to prevent warnings, if the source is a sandbox or other user page? – Tivedshambo (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto for this. This bot should ignore user space. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Convention centres in India

The text for the new article was copied from an article appearing in category space. I express no view as to its merit, but if it is a copy-vio (and it may be), the tag needs to be applied to . I was attempting to wikify this when you applied your tag and some one else applied another. It is most discouraging when one's work is lost to an edit conflict (which destroys one's work). I should have applied the tag "inuse". I hope your bot is designed not to work on "inuse" or "under construction" tagged articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you know, edit conflicts do not cause you to loose your edits; if you scroll down your window, there is another edit box with your changes in it you can copy accross. — Coren ^(talk) 13:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Theater Hopper

The text copied from the Comixpedia page for Theater Hopper is the text from the original Theater Hopper Wikipedia page. The Comixpedia text was copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around, and it merely registered because the article needed to be recreated. -Fearfulsymmetry (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Arb restriction case

Coren a guy you unblocked because he said he'd behave isn't, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Pocopocopocopoco. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The Expert at the Card Table

Copyright issie

The quoted material is copied from the back of the book, which is my personal copy. The quoted material is in block quote, and its reference is cited. Therefore, it is not plagiarized. No material on this page was copied from the internet.

I will re-write the material as time allows, in order to further alleviate the situation. Navy.enthusiast (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Warning

Salut Coren, I am assuming that this edit [7] was in good faith and I appreciate your efforts to uphold our standards of civility and decorum here. I will assume that you did not bother to investigate the user so identified and therefore are not aware that this is a self-proclaimed sockpuppet engaged in wikistalking. As such, my epithet is richly deserved. I am not a keen fan of variants of stock warnings and you can safely assume, upon review of my edit history should you wish confirmation, that I do not frivolously undertake such descriptions and that when I do they are richly deserved. Eusebeus (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you must resist. No matter how sincerely you feel the epithet is deserved, it is never appropriate to actually go ahead and use it. — Coren ^(talk) 13:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh??

To put this as politely as I possibly can: Coren, I have no idea what the Hell you are talking about. Could you please explain why a section of my own talk page was deleted? What INDIVIDUAL sentences or phrases violated what SPECIFIC WP guidelines? If you do not have a specific, reasonable basis for editing my own talk page I'm putting this stuff back up for those (few) who are interested.--Karmaisking (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Err...thanks for your recent "warning" - which itself comes across as a kind of "threat", especially when you say, ominously, "You will not be warned again" (but who's keeping score of threats around here?). Please feel free to edit my own "contribution" for me and repost it. How does that sound? If you can't (or won't), how the Hell do I know what's OK and what's not OK in it? I won't keep "guessing" what your problem is with the piece because I HAVE NO IDEA. Could you please be specific in your objections. Just referring to the guidelines on soapboxing makes no sense because none of this is actually putting any new material into any article. It simply refers to old versions of existing articles. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT???--Karmaisking (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

John Buscema

Hi, and thanks for the notice of the ArbCom decision. I'm honestly happy to see John Buscema free from both edit-warring and the other party's hagiography. Solomon could not have been wiser. With sincere regards, -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know, but since you're volunteering your time to help the ArbCom, you certainly deserve some credit, and in the course of your liaison communication I thought you might pass on my comment and compliment. Keep up the important work, --Tenebrae (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Business Motivation Model

Xactandy (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Corin, I have resubmitted this page and to address your issue of copyright have removed the conflicting content from the web-page: www.xactium.com/bizmodeler/bmm.html

More sandboxes

Edits such as this are plainly ridiculous - please sort your bot out. Thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As is this. Sorry, but unless you give some indication that you intend to resolve this problem, I shall report the bot at the Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. – Tivedshambo (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to "my disruption on NKAO related pages". Would you please be kind as to post diffs about the offending edits to my talk page. Thanks Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My reinsertions of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic template

Hello Coren, now that I understand what you were referring to, I am puzzled as to why you would bring this up now. Just to let you know the background of this issue, someone many months ago had started up a WikiProject Karabakh for collaboration of articles related to Nagorno-Karabakh. Recently there was a lot a complaining in one of the arbcom pages about this WikiProject and admin user:Moreschi put a moratorium on this wikiproject. Since the descision was done on a arbcom page and I was never party to any arbcom descisions I was unaware of this moratorium so I thought that someone was incorrectly removing a relevant wikiproject template talk pages where it should belong. The whole thing was a misunderstanding which eventually cleared itself up. I would also respectfully request that you be more careful about your charge of "bringing nationalistic disputes to Wikipedia". One of the areas that I edit are articles on unrecognized countries. This is a subject that I am interested in and they're are many different countries here and I hold no nationalistic POV. I might hold some sympathy to peoples seeking self determination but as best as I can, I remain NPOV with my edits. Sometimes I make edits that go against my POV. I also want to add that I appreciate the unblock however please be clear that Nagorno-Karabakh and 2007 Georgian demonstrations (the subject of the so called edit war that cause the dual block in the first place) are two totally different subjects with totally different editors and the only similarity is that they are in the same so called continental region called The Caucasus. Also, again I appreciate the unblock but I want to add that my aggreement to stay away from 2007 Georgian demonstrations for the remainder of the block did not constitute any admission of edit warring or guilt on my part. If you look at the background as to what happened, my edits were followed from an RFC which I had believed reached consensus and I had made 1 revert whilst the other had made 5 (please reread my unblock criteria for diffs if necessary). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please help with a dispute I have with an admin

I've noticed that you have taken an interest in my edit history. You have also had a look at this at ANI. Looking at my edit history, I think it should be a nobrainer that I am not a sockpuppet of a transnistrian astroturfer. Would you please be kind as to open up the communication channels and/or mediate with user:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Basically, as per ANI, I want to know what he needs from me to give up this belief that I may be a sock of William Mauco. I will not give up my privacy. Thanks in advance Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to poke FPS about this. Put simply: I do beleive you need some guidance in following consensus and "playing nice" with your fellow editors, but I see no indication that you are William Mauco. I'll discuss things with him and see if we can clarify matters. — Coren ^(talk) 04:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my "following consensus" and "playing nice". Have you considered that you might have the wrong impression in the same way that you seemed to have the wrong impression about the mass userbox reverts? I invite you to monitor the following articles: 2007 Georgian demonstrations, War in Abkhazia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia and there may be more. My impression is that these articles are WP:OWNED by what I consider Georgian nationalists that will revert anything they deem even slightly critical of their government or anything that even slightly shows the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in a positive light. Just look at how many times I have been reverted in 2007 Georgian demonstrations and this was after an RFC in which the editors doing the reverts didn't really participate in and tried to disrupt. I can provide diffs on request. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And they, in turn, are probably sincerely under the impression that you are an Abkhazia nationalist intent on smearing the Georgian governement. There is always a serious risk of dispute in politically difficult subjects (I could give you a number of similar examples) and it's all the more reason to be extraordinarily cooperative and civil in those cases. Gathering consensus is an even more difficult task in this situation— but even more important. Yes, it is possible that there are ownership issues in those articles; but you're not going about fixing the situation in the right way. This needs dispute resolution, and if you keep to the high ground you're much more likely to get help and support from fellow uninvolved editors. — Coren ^(talk) 04:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been called an Abkhazian nationalist, unfortunately there aren't any english wikipedians with Abkhazian nationality that I know of and it's unfortunate as I would be interested in hearing there views. I have however been called "William Mauco" by these users due to FPS's allegations. This was the reason for my desire for FPS to end his paranoia. The point is that I tried dispute resolution by posting an RFC on the talk page of 2007 Georgian demonstrations and the people that disagreed with me tried to disrupt that RFC. Eventually the neutral opinion took my side in the RFC and I allowed the RFC to run it's course and the RFC bot removed the RFC template when I started editing and the other parties immediately started hitting the revert button. It really isn't fair that I have to do a whole song and dance and put through a big effort at dispute resolution when all they do is hit the revert button. Have a look at the history of that article and the history of the talk page and I can post diffs of what I have stated above if necessary. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, please have a look at my reply to your post in FPS's talk page. I starting to lean towards a user RFC on FPS's behaviour. What are your thoughts? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Message from Ralberty

I am writing in regard to a page entitled Lee Zeldin. As you can surmise from what I have attempted to place in that space before, he is a congressional candidate for the first district of New York. In light of the copyright infringement warning, I have attempted as best I could, to write from scratch Mr. Zeldin's biography in a way that will meet your guidelines. I plan on improving upon his page over the course of the next few days, weeks...well, all the way until the election. (Following, of course, the spirit and letter of Wikipedia's rules) The only thing I am asking, if you would be so kind, would be to put up the content that I have put together on the subpage. In the alternative, please let me know what more I can do to get the content displayed. If it is Mr. Zeldin's approval you are seeking, I can arrange for that. Thank you.

Ralberty (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Valea Mare River

The two Valea Mare Rivers are different rives.Afil (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)