I rewrote the page's plot and also tried to cite my source, and will continue to try until it is cited properly. The page is rewritten so there are no copyright infringements.
Originally added web page with substantial text from website of WSO's Principal Conductor, John Gibbons. Have removed this text, so no copyright infringement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musingmax (talk • contribs) 13:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 28 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ouimetoscope, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I am fairly new to Wikipedia trying to start a new concept called a Carbon Footprint Consumer Index. There is no commercial interest. I only want to provide a definition. Is this not appropriate to Wikipedia?
I read your note. It states "organization." This is about a concept, not a product, service or organization. I invented the idea recently. I soon will publish an article on the concept. This is meant as concept that will build as more participates chime in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beoleary (talk • contribs) 02:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting copyright problems because my content was taken from rapcentral. This is true but I was the one who wrote it and put it up on rap central. It is my writing, and I am the sole proprietor. I would appreciate it is my C.R.I.$.I.$. entry not be flagged ~October 27, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyle (talk • contribs) 07:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notice from Coren for Allama Ghulam Mustafa Qasmi page
Well, That is true and for that matter I have added the source line too. It was really amazing for me that there was nothing about Allam Ghulam Mustafa Qasmi on wikipedia. He has been a great scholar in Sindh Pakistan. So, what I wanted was to add a quick reference to him and then sit down sometime and write another article, which will be more substantial of course, about him. Since I have added the source link, it should not be a problem any more as Salaam.co.uk references are used by other portals too i.e. http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/in_memorium_ahmad_deedat/
Nevertheless, this is a temporary reference and I am looking forward to write down a cool article with images about him. He is great asset of our culture and history and we need to have his reference on the web, especially wikipedia. Hope you will promote this positive effort.
I created the new Cassandra complex (psychology) page to record the psychological concept coined by Jungian Laurie Layton Schapira, from the volume The Cassandra Complex: Living With Disbelief: A Modern Perspective on Hysteria (Studies in Jungian Psychology by Jungian Analysts, Vol 36).
A BOT has for some reason conflated the Cassandra complex with the Cassandra phenomenon article which latter term was coined (I think) by a woman named Karen Rodman to refer to troubles allegedly experienced by partners of individuuals with Asperger's Syndrome. This latter WP page is a bit of a mess, with a synthesis of material found in popular film, psychology, mythology, and urban myth. The Cassandra phenomenon page also uses three completely different phrases 'Cassandra phenomenon', 'Cassandra Complex' and 'Cassandra syndrome' without clarifying any differences between these three varied wordings whatever. Therefore I have separated the psychological meaning in Cassandra complex (psychology) as an independent article.
I have made a page CCET on wikipedia and your Bot has detected same text on the site www.ccet.org.
For your information, I am the associate in the college for website upkeep and most of the text has been written by me.
Suggest any remedies if you can. I will try to follow them
I'm sorry, but I've denied the request for task 8 of your bot. The complete reason can be found at the BRFA subpage, but the short of it is that there is little hope that consensus would form that this task was required, especially since other tools already exist to perform that function.
I am kind of confused. If a tool is used for the task, it would add ridiculous amount of noise to RC unlike bot flagged edits which wouldn't. I could use the tool through the bot's account and not flood RC for example. Having something like 20 reverts per minute would annoy just about everybody. -- Catchi? 02:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I have. Half of the concern is over how necessary it is and that admins can manually preform this. Of course this can be manually done like any bot edit but in the cases of a more dedicated attack that'd overwhelm an average admin or ten a bot would be useful. The idea is to have the access ready for the times it will be needed. Imagine a case where a vandal/spam isn't noticed for-say a week. Although very rarely, this does happen. In such cases deploying a bot could save time.
Any abuse as mentioned would be a permanent ban of the bot so I do not think that is a serious risk. I certainly am not that much of an idiot. Mass reverts always need to be based on solid consensus on obvious cases for the sake of sanity. Bot operators are responsible of every edit by the bot so I would have to deal with every mistake manually. No bot operator would wish to deal with hundereds of mistakes.
The bot can be made so that it reverts an edit on a certain time frame...
Also the bot has an advantage normal admin revert lacks, a proper edit summary.
I am also saddened by the semi-panic closure of the bot request. I'd wish it to be fully discussed. I only wish the idea be given a full thought process. Weather it gets accepted or not is a community decision. The location for this kind of discussion should be at the bot request page.
If you do not mind I'd like to keep the thread on two places. You can merely respond on my talk page and I'll copy my and your response here. It's hard to keep track of it otherwise for me. -- Catchi? 09:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I am a relatively new Wikipedia contributor. I received my first message from your bot after creating this article today. It made me realize that I had not sufficiently altered the text of the press release I had cited as the article's source. I hope the changes I have now made to the article are sufficient. There are only so many ways you can reword a very short & straightforward professional biographical stub... --MBueckert18:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have I done all the steps I should with Linshukun?
I've requested a checkuser (via the arbitration page) and let three admins know about the problem. Jehochman and Physchim62 seem a bit gun-shy right now (can't blame them), and Carcharoth is so new to being an admin that he doesn't feel comfortable blocking people. Do I try again? Maybe since your credibility is better than mine, you might give it a try to get someone actually to block him. I'd like to roll back all of his changes on general principle, but Phsychim62 would block me in 10 seconds if I did.Kww20:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't. While it does seem fishy, we can't jump the gun either. Just wait for a CU to be done, and we'll know for sure. Deciding what to do after that is simple (one way or another).
There is no need to be hasty; if it's SC we'll figure out for sure soon enough and we can undo any damage. If he's not, we'll look like we're actually on a witch hunt and it'll hurt the legitimate case against SC.
Patience is a virtue. Try to temper the tone of your reaction to what's been happening— I understand (and share) your anger and frustration at this pseudoscience being smeared all over Wikipedia, but we need to proceed carefully and set a precedent people will respect, not resent. — Coren(talk)21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
National Press Club Ann Cottrell Free Animal Reporting page
A few weeks ago, you asked me how I thought you might stand for RFA in light of mainspace-fu stuff.
I today saw this RFA, and thought you'd be interested in it. It's almost identical in that way, so it might well give you a good independent yardstick to assess how you stand, and to judge the current communal perception of a good editor who is not primarily an article-writing oriented type.
You might find the two analyses at Interiot (Coren) and Interiot (Kwsn) are also of interest, though obviously RFA works off impressions of editors rather than statistical printouts :)
Best and hope this is interesting and informative :)
Um, last I checked, all album articles contained track listings, and generally aren't tagged as "copyright violations." I'm not sure what makes this situation different. For the record, I got the information from the back of the CD jewel case, and stuck the CD in my computer to get the track times. It did not come from the website listed on the copyright violation tag, although in this case it really shouldn't matter either way, unluess you're going to tag ALL album artcles for the same reasons? Eco84 | Talk23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the real and authorized Sydney Cedars Sports Club history and bio page. All facts are real and do not infringe any illegallities by the law.
Sydney Cedars has been an Elite member of the volleyball league in australia for the last 20 years. All info can be found
online at www.sydneycedars.com.au and is registered on the australian volleyball federation.
All the information provided can be verified by any member of the australian volleyball federation, spike magazine, or any member of the australian volleyball community. For any questions please email the webmaster at bibring@gmail.com or the cedars general manager @ joe@swcf.com.au. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibring (talk • contribs) 00:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: You should look at the material she left on Physchim62's talk page. She's been digging more into the Lin Shukun's publishing house. Nothing earth-shattering, but interesting, nonetheless.
Second: I also think she needs a little bit of encouragement ... from a discussion I had on her talk page, I get the impression that she is feeling pretty stressed about this whole thing. I'd worry far more about her leaving Wikipedia than some of the admins that are involved in this case. Kww14:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, your script spotted the copy/paste in LOSALIOS article. That's true and I added a citation (web url) information. But I don't know if it's correct. You can have a look if you want. Thank you. → Tristan ♡15:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Coren! Since I'm trying to figure out how DYKs work, can you tell me how this one went? About all I could learn is that people make nominations at Template talk:Did you know. After that it gets vague in my mind as to what happens. Are DYKs very competitive? How can you determine if any given DYK nomination went through? Thanks for any info, EdJohnston17:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also left a message on the Bot's talk page, but you have been "blessed" with a new form of vandalism - the false claim that CSB has identified a page as a copyright violation. I encountered this at Ome Henk. GRBerry18:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your bot placed a wrong tag in Mohammed Benaziza an article I wrote 10 minutes ago. The list of the Bodybuilding titles is not from the link specified by the bot, but from the reference which is given in the article. I therefore removed the tag a couple of minutes ago.--ChainSuck-Jimmy20:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please teach your bot that the Catholic Encyclopedia text at www.newadvent.org is public domain. Second time of asking. (It's all in Wikisource, by the way.) Charles Matthews22:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does understand if the article was properly attributed. When you created the article, it did not have the {{Catholic}} template on it yet. If you want to avoid the trouble of CSBot tagging, then make sure the {{Catholic}} tag is on it when you create it; the bot usually looks at an article less than 30 seconds after its creation. — Coren(talk)01:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ever acceptable for an admin to revert during a content dispute and then immediately protect the page, such as in this?Kww02:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any similarity to copyright material is coincidental. The page was created by modification of a Wikipedia page for another genus, with information taken from assorted Wikipedia pages. (It appears to be the list of species and vernacular names that has triggered your bot - I wonder why it hasn't been triggered by other bat genera pages.) Lavateraguy11:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Coren, I'm about to remove your notice on my article as i have now placed a footnote and removed and tweaked the text. Hope it's ok now. --Cazo378818:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
SainLouisArt is the Bruno David Gallery in St. Louis, Missouri and we would like to create some informational pages about our artists. We have original biographies on our website and would like to transfer those into new wikipedia articles. How might we go about using our original biographical writings to create new wikipedia articles?
Thank you,
(SaintLouisArt20:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hello again. How about if we add a footnote after the short biography to reference the writing to the Bruno David Gallery website? thank you, (SaintLouisArt21:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Is it possible for me to get a copy of the bots source code, before a public publish? I would like to make a bot, and it does a lot of what I want it to do. Thanks in a advance for any answer. Dreamy§20:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information I have included for this entry is wholly my own. I have a weblog with blognow.com.au, which includes some of the same content but everthing is mine including photos and text.
I am hoping you remove the tag indicating copied content.
I want to thank you very much for your recent Third Opinion participation on the William Lyon Mackenzie King article, you have helped to precipitate some positive changes for the article as a whole.Cheers Deconstructhis20:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your bot decided the above article was a copy of the following page: [1]. Obviously there is a similarity as they are both tables listing the winners. But I suggest it is not a copyvio. --JD55409:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Coren,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB.16:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The web page you mentioned was used as a reference. The text was not copied from there but was written using text from two other sites. In addition, the web [age you cite is correctly referenced as the source of the information. Vegaswikian23:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add this to the workshop, but not sure 1) where, and 2) whether I'm deluding myself that it would be helpful. Comments appreciated.Kww23:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think even reiterating some of the allegations that have be flung around is an especially productive idea at this point. The arbitrators have basically all the evidence in front of them, and are in a good position to figure out who's acting how from the ample workshop as it already is. — Coren(talk)01:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bujangga Manik, and it appears to include a substantial copy of https://www.washington.edu/uwpress/search/books/NOOTHR.html. 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 message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 06:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi -- not sure if you care, but the reason this article appeared to be a dupe of an existing article is that I was moving content someone had inappropriately jammed into a completely different article, and had not removed it from that original article yet. So, your bot worked to spec, but no actual problem here.--NapoliRoma03:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that i am copying the reviews of the fifth season episodes from a wordpress blog, but in fact, its a blog which has copied all the material from the CBS site! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirucumaran (talk • contribs) 07:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coren, Sapphire are members of the IISP. IISP own the copied text to which we do own the copyright. We note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colemannick (talk • contribs) 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of ZEITGEIST, The Movie, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/statement.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.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 19:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC
I did cut and paste text from the web page,but only as guideline to act a a guide while I started writing .I have deleted it now .My apologies. 9th November 2007
The CorenSearchBot left a message on my talk page about the Contempt toward officials page that I created. It is worried about a possible copywrite violation. There is no violation since the text comes from a government publication.Medicjm20:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, here's your RFA if you still are interested in running: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coren 3. Answer the questions then transclude the nomination on WP:RFA. My general advice is to not argue with opposers, if anyone even opposes. But if someone says something inaccurate, feel free to correct it. Good luck! --W.marsh20:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I answered your point on my own talk but I'll leave a copy on your, just in case you don't happen to chack my talk page again.
The article itself relly contains nothing more than quotations. Whatever it is that it talks about, it's not in any kind of context. Do you think it would qualify under patent nonsense ("no meaningful content") or is it even worth nominating for deletion? Maybe it should just be tagged as needing improvement? SWik7816:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll nominate it for deletion. If the creator (and so far the only contributor) feels like fixing it up then I have no probelm with it. Thanks. SWik7816:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you worked with the Fellowship of Friends article in the past. There is an issue with Conflict of Interest (COI) at the moment and the article has been stubbed and protected and I thought that it would be nice if you could voice your opinion on the Talk page. If you are too busy, that's OK. Thank you in advance. Love-in-ark00:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. Let me summarize the situation: I have been editing the article since July and today I noticed looking at the history that you were the first mediator. After you came Vassyana and now there is a 3rd mediator, JoshuaZ, getting involved (!). When we were starting the mediation, an admin (JzG) stubbed and protected the page on November 2nd because it was a "giant ad" he said. Thousands of edits were lost and we had to restart the article from scratch. On November 8 another admin (Yamla) re-stubbed and protected the article because, according to him, "both sides have a COI". You see, Coren, it is really frustrating to spend many hours editing an article and trying to reach consensus on the talk page and then the article is stubbed and protected by an admin, so I would like to know your opinion before giving up and moving on. Love-in-ark00:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the Missouri Arts Council page and read through to find what the similarities were that the CorenSearchBot found and changed my text accordingly. I removed the tag.--billandmonicasson11:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, whitelist me please! I've been adding hundreds of missing/requested film articles/actors, and the copyvio bot has tagged one or two pages in the past. Many thanks! Lugnuts08:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the result of an ongoing dispute and I think the more people we get to comment, the better chance we'll have of resolving the issue once and for all. You're comments would be much appreciated. Cheers. Username nought12:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok. Nice to see a bot owner so on the ball! I understand the problem, and it is partly my fault. When your userspace starts appearing as the second page listed by Google on a particular subject, you know the time has come to upload properly! Pyrope01:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You notified me that the bot found similar text in the definition of Kaltura that I posted as on the TechCrunch site - the text that I used for Kaltura is taken from our own website, and I work at Kaltura. We participated at the TechCrunch event in SF in September and we provided them with the text to be used for their site, so it might be similar. This same text has been published by Kaltura in press releases to the media as well.
Please let me know if you have any questions and thank you for your monitoring and message.
My name is Kelly Chandler, and I am a blogger for Helium, and a script doctor for playwrights. I saw the automated Bot when Googling the poet,David Oliver Doswell, II. I redited the page by request (having been the former editor for the essay Affirmation by the same name) according to the bio of The Metro Spirit here in Augusta, Georgia. It should follow all Wikipedia policy. Please inform me of any requests or violations of Wikipedia policy before removing his page, if you please.
Recently I added an entry of Gonghu with the text I copied from Konghou but it is deleated by CorenSearchBot because the same text is used in http://diemazz.com/vids/Konghou . I dont know who is the copier but in the other site i discovered relevance to wikipedia along with wikipedia stub on that site. Simon18i18:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put in a re-direct to clear up the overlapped tagged by the bot between Bill S-220 An Act to Protect Heritage Lighthouses and An Act to Protect Heritage Lighthouses. Letterofmarque01:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there's another similar issue raised immediately above. Perhaps the bot could wait a period of time (an hour?) before tagging articles. ENeville00:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a case like that, it's really important that you actually move the article, rather than copy-and-paste the contents, because that looses the contribution history (which is a GFDL requirement). I'm going to be moving back the article to and delete the new one to make room for a correct move, after which you'll be able to create the disambiguation page. — Coren(talk)00:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, the page is titled "price (disambiguation)", so contributions would logically have been made in that context. Can you point to guidelines that support your proposed course of action? ENeville00:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The context is entirely immaterial, the requirement that all contributors to an article are preserved across forks and move is a sine qua non requirement of the GFDL (you are, of course, welcome to check with the larger communities around WP:SCV and WP:CP). At any rate, except for the movement of the edit history, the net effect will be exactly the same, so I'm not sure I understand where your concerns lie?
You can, by the way, avoid the problem entirely by moving the article, then editing the redirect that was left in its place into the disambiguation— that's even less trouble for you since it would usually avoid the trouble of the cut-and-paste to begin with. — Coren(talk)00:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, the edit history is the point. Correct me if I'm wrong here, or if critical details were also intended.
My concern is that there are many "Title (disambiguation)" pages that have some "John Title" entries in them. I can see the argument in this case for moving the page to "Title (surname)", and replacing the redirect with the disambiguation page because the list of names is the bulk of the info. However, such is not always the case. Do I correctly understand that your suggestion in this case is contingent upon the length of the list of names, and not a generalized statement about moving unambiguous names from disambiguation pages? ENeville00:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly. There's a funny gray area around very short list of surnames vs. large disambigs— the usual practice is that when what you're moving is a small part of the article, simply linking back to the source in the edit history is more than enough and there is no point to moving the article. The most important part is that by looking at the edit history, you can trace back all the way to article creation; and convention is that the bulk of the edit history follows the bulk of the text. — Coren(talk)00:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and please accept my apologies; I forgot to save a version of the surname page after your modifications, and that got overwritten with the move. That's a manipulation error on my part and I'm sorry I've undone some of your work. — Coren(talk)00:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked that link you quoted. It is actually copying Wikipedia information. So its not a case of me copying that website as you thought. The website is copying me! Sting_au | Talk23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana(talk)22:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you blew that one out of the water! Congrats and have fun with the mop! If you need any pointers, I'm happy to assist. Now get going on CAT:CSD and the backlog you know where! --But|seriously|folks22:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mop time!! :) Yayy!! Congratulations and welcome to mayhem. If you need any help with anything, you can call on me anytime :) - Alison❤23:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's one loose end that really bothers me: Lin Shukun. I've made pleas on relevant project pages to review his work, but it doesn't seem to be happening. Based on his past associations and his COI, his contribution seems highly suspect. Despite that, Jehochman and Physchim62 both seem intent on welcoming him with open arms. Anything more that can or should be done?Kww (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to give the benefit of the doubt for now. I'm keeping an eye on things but I'm also in no hurry to start doing guilt by association. Let's allow things to simmer down and see how things fall, okay? — Coren(talk)23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari23:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Don't hesitate to ask for help if you get stuck, even admins run into situations and get confused. Try out the new admin school too! Once again congrats! Happy editing! Lradrama12:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was rather a quick delete if I may say so? The number of Welsh language theatres must be very limited and we surely should be giving the author and others a chance to improve the article?Paste (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply, yes I feel it should be given another chance, it's certainly genuine, I've checked its website.Paste (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about the appropriateness of the article, and believe that it describes his importance adequately enough to not fall under CSD #7. It should go through the AfD process. StrengthOfNations (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You removed db-copyvio because you said the article had been sufficiently rewritten. With respect, I disagree. Please consider the following comparisons between the current version and the source it was copied from:
Wikipedia: The United Nations Security Council imposed the sanctions and demanded the destruction of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons under the supervision of a United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM). Iraq was permitted to sell a limited amount of oil in exchange for some food and medicine. (Oil for food programme.)
Pilger takes the former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, Denis Halliday, back to Iraq for the first time since he resigned in protest over the sanctions back in September 1998. Together, they reveal an extraordinary portrait of life in a country with a decaying infrastructure and a population that Pilger says is being held hostage to the compliance of Saddam Hussein.
Disturbing evidence emerges that the "holds" on humanitarian supplies have paralyzed the country and devastated millions of people, many dying from curable diseases because life saving drugs are only available intermittently. The US and UK backed sanctions are so prescriptive as to suggest that items as essential and innocuous as bleach could be “dual use” and so cannot be imported.
Pilger also provides evidence of the suffering caused to the civilian population by the bombing campaign being conducted by US and Britain in the guise of protecting the "no-fly zones" in northern and southern Iraq.
http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/pay.html
The UN Security Council imposed the sanctions and demanded the destruction of Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons under the supervision of a UN Special Commission (UNSCOM). Iraq is permitted to sell a limited amount of oil in exchange for some food and medicine.
Pilger takes the former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, Denis Halliday, back to the crippled country for the first time since he resigned in protest over the sanctions back in September 1998. Together, they reveal an extraordinary portrait of life in a country with a decaying infrastructure and a population that Pilger says is being held hostage to the compliance of Saddam Hussein.
Pilger has brought back disturbing evidence that the "holds" on humanitarian supplies have paralyzed the country and devastated millions of people, many dying from curable diseases because life saving drugs are only available intermittently. He also finds that the breakdown of the clean water system and health facilities are having a tragic effect on young children, contributing to an alarming rise in their mortality rate.
Pilger also exposes the suffering caused to the civilian population by the illegal bombing campaign being conducted by US and Britain in the "no-fly zones" in northern and southern Iraq.
The only original language in the Wikipedia article is the single sentence: "The US and UK backed sanctions are so prescriptive as to suggest that items as essential and innocuous as bleach could be “dual use” and so cannot be imported." The Reviews section of the article, while not precisely copyvio, is also a direct copy (in different order) of the Reviews section of the website. Thanks. Pishogue (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Self correction: the only original language in the quoted section; the first three paragraphs of the Wikipedia article may also be original. Pishogue (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just reverted some vandalism on your userpage, and I'm not quite sure which vandalism template to use on the users talkpage. Is their one specifacally for userpage's? Thanks. --θnce θn this islandSpeak!23:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two rivers with this name. The existing one has been differentiated from the new one. They now have different names.Afil (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Hajinikitas and Andrew Hajinikitas (Record Holder) are not Copyright
I just saw so much vandalism in so short amount of time that I (wrongly) assumed they were going to mass vandalize. Oh, well, it stopped and thats all that matters! Happy editing! Icestorm815 (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For Actual_final_consumption_of_households I did verbatim copy the two sentences which gives the goal and "definition" of the measure from the document I put in External links. I did so because I don't think such a short definition from a public body fall under any copyright. What do you think? (Ironically the bot reference is also a copy of the original source with a link :). Guerby (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad. Sorry. I would however picture that when an open proxy belonging to a banned vandal edits a text against three established users, the issue of impartiality would not be posed, and that a revert might be performed under such a protection without any significant controversy. I was under the assumption that it was a full block, and, as such, I did not object to the protection, but was rather concerned if the protection may actually get to preserve edits that are under any definition disruptive (as the case seemed to be here). Dahn (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article if you may call it, contains the name of the singer the lyrics that you can find in a million places and the original show where the song started you can find this info on Amazon if you wonted to by the original show there is nothing copyrighted in here it is just little pieces of info.
I'm a little confused. How is a page about this book spam. I din't mean to advertise the book, just post a page about it. It is a serious work of investigative journalism by two award winning journalists from Rolling Stone magazine and it did reach #18 on the NYT bestseller list. Are books not allowed to have a wikipage?
Put simply, a two-liner blurb accompanied by a link to purchase said book is spam. No prejudice against recreating the article with proper sources, however. — Coren(talk)04:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed that you deleted the article that I created regarding Anthony Collins the football player. He is listed as one of the top 5 lineman in the country. He is expected by many to become a professional player and he was just named as a finalist for the official lineman of the year award. I was just about to add that information to the article when I saw that you had deleted it. This is definitely notable enough for an entry. What is gained from deleting it? What is the point. Please consider restoring the article. Thank you. Randomfrenchie (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, thanks for correction. I really don't understand why some people do the cut-and-paste thing, when they can simply click the move button. It is so frustrating, isn't it? --BorgQueen (talk) 14:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Sadi Carnot is banned for one year, and the remaining parties are encouraged to "move forward from this unfortunate incident with a spirit of mutual understanding and forgiveness". For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk)12:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi i have been sent a copyright message on my page however i have permission to use the information for All Eyes on Glaucoma' How do i go about prooving this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siobhan 13 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually the owner of rubbersoul21.googlepages.com/cervantesbiblio.html -- I am in the process of transferring the page onto a wikipage, for ease of access.--Rubbersoul20 (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that I appear to have violated some guidelines when adding a link to my own review of Tangled Up by Girls Aloud. I added it in the external reviews section, and I did not intend to post spam or promote the website I write for. I was simply adding my review to the list of other professional reviews. However, I do apologise for any offence that I have caused, and have deleted the said link. John OMH (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your robot tagged a citation from the London Gazette as a copy vio. It's crown material and so is free for all to use after fifty years. I therefore removed the tag and explained why on the talk page. Nick mallory (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bot, you got it wrong again. This is another river. I guess that hydrology is a bit too complicated for a bot, it needs a human mind. But thanks anyway. You are just doing your duty. (Do you say happy thanksgiving to a bot?)02:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I received a message regarding the copyright of the webpage of Juan Pablo Aldasoro as it seemed that it was a breach of copyright. I have created BOTH pages, the one at the wikipedia and the one at geocities, this last one is not copyrighted so there is no problem to be reported. Juan Pablo Aldasoro was my grandfather and all the pictures in both sites are mine and I have uploaded them with copyleft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creyes (talk • contribs) 12:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is copied word for word from [2]. I think it qualifies for WP:CSD#G12 because:
The material was copied from another website;
There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving;
The material was introduced by Igycg (talk·contribs) and no one else has edited the article;
However, the last criterion is what I'm not sure about:
There is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license.
Basically, the article sounds like it was created for advertising and recruitment purposes but I don't think it qualifies as blatant advertising. Do you think it's a G12?
Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me again!
Thanks for the help with the previous article.
This article in question this time is a target for a spammer whose IP seems to change with every edit. He keeps adding an external link [3] in the References section that does not belong there. First of all, it is not referenced anywhere in the article. Second, it is nothing more that a link to a website that hosts wallpapers, or 'panoramas', as the website calls them one of which happens to be a wallpaper of the subject of the article, including a short In memoriam. This article has been fairly notorious as a tribute page for his fans since he died. It was first protected on October 22 due to edit and revert warring by fans and then it was semi-protected on November 12 by User:Duja (currently on a Wikibreak) because of the spammer. If you look at the edit history of the article, you will notice several contributions of an IP that starts with 70.52 and changes with every edit. Every one of his contributions is the previously mentioned link, nothing more. Should the article be semi-protected again? I see no other way of stopping this because the spammer would be difficult if not impossible to block.
Please put the sciousness entry back. The quote is from an 1890 text, well within the public domain. The concept of non-duality is of increasing relevance to contemporary philosophical discussions and the growing east-west dialogue. The article will grow.
I'm about to create a large number of articles, similar to that at Actinex, all sourced from the US government's public domain NCI Cancer Dictionary. Your bot has detected that they match text from http://www.cancersource.com/ This is a false positive, as the NCI Dictionary articles on cancersource.com are also derived from the same public domain resource.
Each of my NCI-sourced articles will contain an external link which points back to the original NCI text, so you can verify this yourself. Regards, The Anome (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? Do you ever check your messages? At the moment, your bot is stopping me from doing useful work. It's incredibly irritating to be bot-templated for every single edit.
I'd like to suggest that you make the list of allowed tags configurable by other admins, by putting the list on a subpage in the bot's user space, protected so that only admins can edit it. -- The Anome (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's on my to-do list, and I'll have that feature ready early next week. I'm presently away on business so I have limited connectivity. — Coren(talk)15:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've just created the page The Northern Lights (a named train), using the text from the Highland Chieftain article as a template, suitably edited of course, and it was taged by CSB as being the same TicketMan (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki entry does contain a description of the orchestra from their website gbyo.org. I don't think the material is considered copyrighted, and I do represent the orchestra in that I am a board member, but I can re-word it if that is a problem. If you can unblock it I can modify it. Thanks.
Jeffyoder (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Jeff Yoder[reply]
. We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. 16:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. — Coren (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, such as Health Ranger, you will be blocked. — Coren (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)