User talk:Coren/Archives/2009/October

Scottish Legal Aid Board - CorenSearchBot is in error

The bot is picking up the two large sections quoting Acts of Parliament. These words cannot be altered, for obvious reasons. I have therefore removed the copyvio template. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm. What about the interaction with Crown copyright? Do acts of parliament apply? — Coren ^(talk) 10:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

socionics article

A user who edits socionics named Tcaudilllg is threatening to go to arbcom to get his sole way with the socionics article. He seems to be avoiding posting credible sources and has resorted to telling white lies, such as saying that leigitimate portions and methods in the theory are 'fringe', in order to remove information he does not want in the article and get only what he wants in the article. He has also resorted to a number of personal attacks when he does not get his way with the article. He has also been makeing insistance reverts to the article that are unnecessary and for reasons that are insufficent for wikipedias standards, such as using making 'personal attacks' against another editor as a reason to remove articles in the headline. He has also been removing information that is sufficently sourced according to wikipedias standards.

Here is his userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tcaudilllg

I posted this here, because he has threatened to come here, so he can get his sole way with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.167.21 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Venus 2000

The angelfire text and downloadable pdf are used with the creators permission. We have his emailed permission 1rapunzle (talk)1rapunzle1rapunzle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

Once Is Not Enough (Novel)

Many thanks for the caution here relating to page duplication. I didn't want to delete and redirect from Once Is Not Enough until I had the target page clearly set up. Since "Once Is Not Enough" may also refer to the movie of the same name, I thought it was best to formally distinguish the novel from the film. Hope this is OK.

Dreadarthur (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

SearchBot Error, I think

Hey, your bot just said that I had copied some other site on the page Sing the Word Hope in Four-Part Harmony, and I didn't, and I don't want my page deleted, so I'm going to take off the template. I hope I am not in error in doing so; I'm new to Wikipedia, and I just wanted to start a few pages. Thanks for your concern, though. Or, rather, your bot's.

Captainpancreas (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

SearchBot Error

The bot just flagged 2007_Webby_Awards saying it is similar to List_of_Webby_Award_winners . The new page will be a more detailed page (and was already linked to from the List of Webby Award winners. I have removed the csb tag. This also applied to the other Webby Award Pages (that I'll create later).

Thanks ! --SirGeek CSP (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Armenian Sport in the Ottoman Empire

OK. I would find another sources.--Hovik95 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Matla Power Station

I was one of the people who actually build this powerstation - that it looks similar than Eskom own page is not accidental.Flagman (talk) 09:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello CorenSearchBot

Hello CorenSearchBot. Josh Flagg has been updated. I have added to the front of the article more information. Can you please send me, Josh Flagg, a message letting me know the article is now ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdf3524 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

K Langloh Parker

Your bot picked up a chunk of text that I put in this article, copied from project Gutenberg. However, the chunk is a quote attributable to the subject of the article (K Langloh Parker) and is now out of copyright, so I presume there is no problem in including it? How do I flag it as such so it doesn't get picked up again by hte bot?

RayNorris (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:EEML sockpuppet

Would this be checked faster if I filed a regular SPI report? The Digwuren account is getting stale, if it isn't already. If it is a sockpuppet, I'd like to present evidence about its actions, preferably at an early stage in the case. Offliner (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any specific reason to believe that this is the sockpuppet of a party to the case. Please be careful to not fall to paranoia and turn things into a witch hunt; assuming good faith remains a founding principle even when faced with what you perceive as misbehavior by some.

Someone who brings only edit warring to a delicate area that is under discretionary sanctions should be, normally, brought to enforcement on the merits of their edits, not on suspicion of being an alternate account: the latter is hard to prove while the former is, arguably, the real problem that needs to be fixed. — Coren ^(talk) 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I only wanted to be helpful by bringing this to ArbCom's attention to see if it is suspicious enough or not. I'm sure you are assuming good faith on my part as well. Offliner (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No bad faith is implied. I'm just pointing out the danger of falling into an "Us vs Them" mentality that will have you jumping at shadows and fearing conspiracies; that's a dangerous pattern and noticing it is often enough to take the necessary step back. — Coren ^(talk) 16:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Jim Diamond (Magician)

Hi, this biography has been flagged. The Article already has donated copyright material. (see article talk page) Thanks. Deadalus821 (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Advice

I would appreciate your advice in regards to this, as you were the one to initiate the actions against Geogre, and Bishonen was involved in these matters which also involved pages related to Jonathan Swift and abuse of admin power in addition to talk page harassment and attacks of my work related to Swift. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My advice, when there is a personality conflict, is (almost) always to turn around, step away and don't look back. It's harder than it looks, and sometimes deeply unsatisfying, but has the highest possible chance of defusing the situation. — Coren ^(talk) 16:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that this article deals with FACs I am involved in, and that Bishonen has taken to fighting with many people and attacking various pages. You put forth a motion for GlassCobra and Jennavecia to be desysopped for their knowledge of the undertow's inappropriate behavior. I would ask that you put forth one for Bishonen in her knowledge of Utgard Loki and her participating in discussions with him on that knowledge in pushing for bannings, defending inappropriate deletions, outright personal attacks and harassment, and other major rule violations. It is clear that there is a double standard and her current actions suggest that 1. she does not think she did anything wrong and 2. that she believes that she can get revenge on people that were abused by the Utgard Loki account. You can see here where this has brought about further attacks on myself (false claims about my actions) and John Carter in addition to attacks on many other pages. From what I know, GlassCobra and Jennavecia have not gone to various talk pages and articles in order to bring harm and attack their accusers. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Corenbot search about 12th Pioneers

Points noted. Being acted upon. Copyvio text removed. Material being rewritten. Under construction tag has been placed. AshLin (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Law/Undertow motions

Is there a reason that they don't cover Jayron32? Steve Smith (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I was aware that he had voted in the RfA, but I seem to have overlooked his admission that he knew beforehand. Fixed. — Coren ^(talk) 18:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Coren - re: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Law.27s_unblock_of_ChildofMidnight - Several arbs now regard this earlier matter as moot. However there are not enough votes cast to resolve the request. Your input would be welcome. Manning (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, it has passed its expiry date and can be closed anyway. Manning (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot not leaving a note on a editors talk page

I just deleted Drew Price which the bot had tagged as a copyvio. I noticed that User talk:DrewsDad665 was redlinked. I thought the bot always left a message. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 10:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a known bug (unable to leave a message on a completely new page), but one which I had forgotten due to workload. Thanks for reminding me. — Coren ^(talk) 10:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Retribution, punishment, and punitive action

Please familiarize yourself with this essay: Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors are not punishment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not presume to explain my motivations to me. — Coren ^(talk) 22:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A not important comment

Please remember that, on the Internet, when there is smoke there is usually someone blowing smoke out of their ass. from the arbitration motions page. beautiful quote, i'm going to steal it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've probably heard that aphorism somewhere in some form long ago, but I'd be darned if I can remember where or when. Hey, it might be my own creation.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 01:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Automated message re: new Timeline Article

Hello, I received an automated message about the Timeline of Orthodoxy in Greece article I just posted, about information from other sites being copyrighted. The article is posted with permission from OrthodoxWiki, and there is an attribution tag listed at the bottom of the article there, thanks, ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Transvision Vamp - Kiss Their Sons

CorenSearchBot report is in error. This page contains original work and was certainly NOT copied from the fansite http://www.itm-ed.de/tvamp/music/discography/kisstheirsons.html. The fansite merely lists the album and track listing (as other sites like Amazon and Discogs etc. do). It makes no mention of the errors I have listed on this new Wiki entry, contains no details regarding the release dates etc or any other details about it's release. I constructed this page in good faith and would appreciate any further comments regarding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidkt (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

National wildlife refuges

I'm going to be creating some NWR pages over the next few days, using only PD information found on federal websites. Any way to get the template I used recognized? It's the generic US government template. See Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuge as an example. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Vote

You've double voted on the Jennavecia desysop--Tznkai (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

lol, try not to do that. LOL!--69.114.165.104 (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. At least I voted the same way twice. I'll really start worrying when I start contradicting myself.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 11:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

False-positive from CorenSearchBot

See Talk:Cambridge University Catholic Chaplaincy. Thanks OrangeDog (talk • edits) 17:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Question on EE workshop page

Coren, I was wondering if you are able to provide a response to my question here? I realise the recent Law/undertow/Casliber situation must have absorbed an inordinate amount of ArbCom members' time, and in that light I suspect I am not the only one curious about the timeline for the EE case. I am also curious about whether the table summarising active cases on the main requests page, which indicates that a proposed decision is expected soon, still roughly reflects your expectations. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it has, but I've answered your question over there. — Coren ^(talk) 20:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you also please answer this question? Is the evidence deadline tomorrow? Offliner (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

CSB and flagged / patrolled revisions

Hi Coren,

There's a discussion underway at WT:RFA#WP:FPRR regarding selection of reviewers, and to cut to the chase, we were wondering whether it would be feasible to have CSB re-scan newly patrolled revisions for copyvio, which would remove part of the burden on part of the reviewers, speed up their work, but also ensure that we catch more of the vios introduced after article creation. The biggest plus of doing that, IMO, is that we will finally start getting the means to crack down on vios which may have remained in articles for years and wouldn't otherwise be caught unless the article gets peer reviewed or someone complains. What do you think? MLauba (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That shouldn't be too hard, though I haven't looked into how to fetch the review log from the API. I'll look into it during the next week and comment on feasibility. — Coren ^(talk) 21:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Noor Specialist Hospital information

Hello Coren,

I got a copyright warning regarding posting information about the hospital, i have the right to do so and i work as a marketing and advertising officer at noor specialist hospital and you can contact me to confirm this at:

Hospital's email address :NSHbahrain@gmail.com

Or contact me: marketing@noorhospital.com

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by NSHBAHRAIN (talk • contribs) 08:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Answered at user's talk page. MLauba (talk) 09:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

National Wildlife Refuges

It's still tagging me sometimes - everything I'm uploading is public domain. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Big Love

Since there are multiple uses of the phrase Big Love I made said page a redirect page to Big Love (disambiguation) where the user can decide which Big Love they are searching.Wallstreethotrod (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

"other to fight editors perceived as being "opponents" and generally assuming bad faith from editors editing from a Russian or Western European point of view."

Could you clarify that. I actually don't know what you mean in that sentence. While I can guess you confused Russian point of view with that of pro-Putin supporters(of which not all Russians are, and remember that some list members were Russian)-I completely don't understand what you meant by Western European point of view ? Could clarify what it means and give examples ?--Molobo (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously an oversimplification; simply a matter of "Us vs. Them". There is little point to going into detail about what the factions conceive each other to be, is there (if only because that's necessarily hyperbole, and would not be the same depending on who you asked)?

Sorry but while I think I can guess what you meant by Russian pov, I am unable to understand what you meant by Western point of view ? Clarification would be welcomed to understand your statement.--Molobo (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that! Well, it might not have been phrased felicitously, but what I meant is that in numerous cases there has been conflation of what sources are available vs. the "mainstream" (and therefore mostly Western on English Wikipedia) point of view. I suppose there could be a better way to phrase this, but I haven't managed to pin it down. — Coren ^(talk) 22:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, while it may be an "oversimplification" I find being called "anti-Russian" personally insulting. Please note that Cool Hand Luke agreed with me on this previously and changed his comment on my request [1]. Also - when it comes to sources, we're the ones who used mostly Western sources. So I still don't get it.radek (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(from my evidence section). This is a typical example of disagreement between Martingt and Russavia [2]. This is a typical example of disagreement between Offliner/Russavia and me [3]. Do this fit the "East-West" pattern? My favorite sources are either "Western/US", like the books by Robert Conquest, or Russian.Biophys (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed FoF - Harrassment

Hello Coren, thank you for the proposed FoF and remedies on the EEML so far. But I do have a major question that I feel does need to be raised, and I believe that doing so on your talk page will allow for discussion between us, but be in the open for all to see. When the existence of the mailing list became known by way of announcement of User:Alex Bakharev one of the major things that was alleged was the email list engaged in systematic stalking and harrassment of myself.

After perusing the archive myself, some 10% of the email list deals in some way, shape or form with myself, and discussions of stalking, harrassment, baiting, gaming and teaming on myself. This somewhat goes against the portrayal in the current FoF as the email list being of mainly a social nature. I have presented evidence on the case of one of the most egregious cases of harrassment, which I knew at the time was being co-ordinated offwiki, and which was the extension of harrassment going back to November 2008. Look at the evidence I have presented, and there is plenty of my noting the harrassment at the time of it happening, and plenty of denials of fact by participants (and even calls for me to retract accusations due to it being uncivil).

The main example I have shown in evidence is just the tip of the iceberg on the stalking, harrassment, baiting, gaming and teaming on myself by this brigade, and this is evident to anyone who has read the archive. Why am I telling you this here?

For 10 months, my time here on WP has been an absolute bloody nightmare; so much so I have been forced to all but retreat to my userspace and work on articles on my own. This is not what WP should be. I have shown evidence of where I have appealed for admin assistance, and where I have appealed for community action, and on not a single occasion has this assistance been forthcoming. In most instances, all I have asked for is for editors to have {{Digwuren enforcement}} placed on their talk age, so that they are formally placed on notice. But even this has been successfully gamed by way of lies, deceipt and teaming, as can be seen by the main example of evidence on the EEML evidence pages. And so much so, so successful has the gaming and teaming been that this brigade has been able to characterise myself a violent POV-pusher in the eyes of the community, leaving nothing being done.

So you can understand, that I am partly disheartened and partly p**sed off that for all intents and purposes the harrassment on myself (and others) is not going to even acknowledged by this Committee by way of a finding of fact. And this goes with your proposed amnesty (the second one for numerous editors on the list), which yes, it would be great to move forward, but as one who has been a victim of this groups intense harrassment over a 10 months period, it will be next to impossible for me to move forward, when one of the most defining characteristics of this group is not being acknowledged, but rather ignored. Note, this is not me pushing for sanctions against the more than half a dozen list members who actively engaged in the harrassment of myself; if other Committee members believe that their harrassment of myself and others is worthy of sanctions, then I have good faith to believe that at least one of them will put forward their own remedy concerning this. What this is about is acknowledgement of the simple fact that you, I, list members and everyone who has seen the list, know to be a fact, and that is that editors such as myself were placed under intense harrassment by the brigade.

It is fine for list members to be suggesting all these different lesser penalties as a result of their participation in this mailing list, but there has not been a single acknowledgment by a single one of them that any of them participated in harrassment of myself and other editors, and so long as this is not addressed by the Committee in a fair manner, then I for one can only see this as the Committee condoning, or at the very least sympathising with, such behaviour, and there is no way for editors such as myself to look forward to the future.

Simple acknowledgement is all that I ask. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I will also forward this in its entireity to arbcom-l, so that all committee members can see where it is that I stand, and the reasons behind it.

Coren, I don't know how I could have missed it, but it seems to be covered, although only in passing at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Improper_coordination. I kinda expected something a little more substantial, but nonetheless I will let this drop for the time being, unless yourself or other arbs decide to make it more substantial. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

One should examine this good piece of evidence provided by a neutral Russian editor [4]. It paints the story in a different light.Biophys (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, this request is closed for now. And please do not portray Colchicum as neutral, for anyone who states "I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ruavia."[5] is not neutral as you proclaim. But thanks for coming anyway. I'm off back to simple. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, please call me Biophy any time you like instead of doing this. Biophys (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am commenting on this since this is obviously relevant to the ArbCom case. Russavia, this kind of post properly belongs on the case discussion page not here. But very quickly:

1. You got yourself topic banned without any help from anyone and then your escalating incivility (including your promises not to abide by the topic ban) changed that to an overall block (which has since been rescinded).
2. Alex, one of your supporters, when he announced the existence of the list at AN/I completely misrepresented the nature of the emails and made false allegations of "stalking and harassment" - basically it seems, as an attempt to get you off the hook. You and your supporters have been trying to play this up this entire time even though it's simply not true.
3. You have shown plenty of the type of behavior that led to your topic ban, then block, during the ArbCom case itself, comparing people to "gang rapists" and the like
4. Yes. People on the list talked about you. They stated what their honest opinion of you, as a Wikipedia editor, was. If you don't want to know what people think of you, don't read their private emails. That should be obvious.
5. But talking about you in private conversations, even if these conversations are painfully honest, is NOT "stalking and harassment". It's private conversations. So far you have not provided a SINGLE diff or any piece of evidence that you were actually stalked and harassed.
6. What you've experience in the past 10 months on wiki - whether you think it was "nightmare" or not - is simply multiple editors disagreeing with you because of the extremist views you hold, and the incivil way you try to defend them. What you're asking is that nobody ever disagree with you and never revert you. That's not how Wikipedia works.
7. You've been forum shopping like crazy. Your requests for unblock include 1) your talk page, 2) AN/I, 3) ArbCom case, 4) AN/I again and 5) this talk page. And that's just off the top of my head. And that's even as you violated first your general block, then your topic ban.

Whatever the wrongs committed by list members, "stalking and harassment of Russavia" is simply not one of them and as difficult it may be to admit it to yourself, it was your own behavior which led to your present troubles.

I've said in the past that under some circumstances some relaxation of your topic ban might be appropriate (Piotrus has gone further than that). You have done NOTHING to help create these circumstances, just the opposite.radek (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me simply explain my diff above. Here, Offliner removes certain information that needs to be removed, but he does it because he was asked by Russavia (see edit summary [6]). In fact, the entire series of revers by Offliner [7] was triggered by this message by Russavia [8]. These guys communicate with each other over the phone, or at least Russavia said so [9].Biophys (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Bank (card game)

I found a card game in 1911 Britannica which doesn't appear to be on Wikipedia. I don't use the 1911 template, since the article is in Wikisource. Instead I use the {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}} template. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing Heading

I tried to move "Paris Sewer Museum" content to a new entry "Paris Sewer," but obviously I failed. (I first DUPLICATED the entry, and now i can't either erase the new entry nor move the old one. UtahSurfer (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Note in Coren's absence: I requested a db-move on the target page. MLauba (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Rutherford Journal

I believe the CorenSearchBot was in error marking this as copyrighted material, so I have removed this notice. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Public domain for which there is no template

The poem I quote in the article The Lamplighter (poem) is public domain and so is widely published on the web on copyrighted pages. However, despite republication, the original text remains public domain.

The web page that CSBot noted is actually one that I did not reference in creating the article - and the copy I typed into the article was my attempt at textual criticism using 3 different web-pages (project Gutenberg, Bartelby and something that Google turned up). —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrotherE (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Kennaway Fine Art Guild and Robert Crisp

These two article have more or less the same text as the websites as I am the original author of this text I would ask you not to delete these pages as I can proove that I am the author! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdambaek (talk • contribs) 10:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read the guide to donating your own copyrighted material to Wikipedia. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. — Coren ^(talk) 10:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

All my email accounts have been disabled

All my email accounts have been disabled(I stored there my wiki password). Can't access them until google helps. Molobo. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

CorenBot message

Per your message on my Talk page , the CornBot correctly identified text that I have added to Tel Gerisa as being a copy of http://www.archaeowiki.org/Tel_Gerisa. That content, however, is available for copying and republication under the same terms as Wikipedia's content - Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. I don;t think there is a copyright problem in this case (and I don;t think the CornBot malfunctioned, either) Millmoss (talk) 23:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the Attribution-ShareAlike license, while that wiki uses the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. Non-commercial licenses can't be used on Wikipedia (see here) and the text therefore needs to be rewritten. Theleftorium 23:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot was wrong

CorenBot tagged this version of the Sherlock Holmes was Wrong article incorrectly, as supported, on the talk page, here. Wikiscient 11:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Polo Page

Coren bot marked my article Polo (Video Game) as being a copy from my About page on my website, How can I fix this? --Shawnanator (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read the guide to donating your own copyrighted material to Wikipedia. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. — Coren ^(talk) 00:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

FoF and Radeksz

Your FoF proposal acknowledges that Martintg has been disruptive, but there is no mention at all of disruption by Radeksz. If you check my updated evidence section, you will see that there is at least as much evidence of disruption by Radeksz as there is of Martintg. Additionally, Radeksz appears to have participated in almost every disruptive action and edit war organized by the team. I wonder if there is a reason why this is not reflected in the FoF yet? Offliner (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong on the PD talk page or Evidence? Offliner's "evidence" consists mostly of false accusations and pretending things are that aren't - like saying that I "baited" people when in fact what I said was things like "so and so is uncivil and should get banned" (which they were, and which they did, as they should have, unless Offliner and friends want to have another go at Sandstein) - Offliner "evidence" section says a lot more about Offliner's own standards of honesty than about anything that I did. I've replied at the Evidence page, where this discussion as well belongs. Offliner may very well be concerned that if he DOES put it on the PD page it will get removed by the clerks for the flaming and pressure tactics that it is - so he tries to sneak it here. Seriously, all Wiki case discussion should be confined to case pages.radek (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Coren, I would particularly like you to take into account the socking as a Belgian IP (something confirmed both by the archvie and the activity on-Wiki, and discussed in Offliner's evidence), as well as Radeksz's refusal to back down from his aggressive, disruptive behavior during this case. I do not wish to be any kind of lobbyist here, but seeing as you are re-checking the evidence, I thought it might be appropriate that ArbCom sees the material placed in the evidence section by the various parties during this past week. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There's been no "aggressive, disruptive behavior" on my part during this case. There was me defending myself against false accusations, as I have every right to do. If you want "aggressive behavior" then please note Anti-Nationalist falsely calling Jacurek a "Holocaust revisionist" and accusing him of using sock puppets. When it turned out the relevant anon IP was somebody else, A-N apologizes to the IP but adamantly refuses to apologize to Jacurek for slandering him (for either the sockpuppeting accusation or for calling him a Holocaust denial). "Socking as a Belgian IP" - please! Also this is just priceless: I do not wish to be any kind of lobbyist here - right.... Again, these belong on the discussion page.

State parks

Hi. Can you please get your bot to recognise www.stateparks.com as non copyrright as User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao has been starting a lot of articles which incorporate public domain info but your bot doesn't know about it. See his spammed talk page!! Can you either whitelist that website or whitelist Ser Amantio's account from copyright searching? Thanks, Himalayan 23:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Even simpler: Coren, could you check whether {{Include-USGov}} is in the exceptions list? The user adds it to all the article he creates. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't. Is now.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 10:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

On the minus side, it was pretty nice when you look at the huuuge backlog at WP:SCV and suddenly can clear off several parks at once, gave you a feeling of being super fast all of a sudden ;) MLauba (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coren, CSB is still flagging parks with {{Include-USGov}}, such as Fallon National Wildlife Refuge. Could it be the extra parameters? Cheers, – Toon 20:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. Can you point me one that was tagged erroneously? — Coren ^(talk) 22:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, aside from the one I mentioned there, there was Swan Lake National Wildlife Refuge (+ history), both use {{Include-USGov |agency=United States Fish and Wildlife Service}} – Toon 00:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, might be the whitespace. I know I handle actual spaces okay, but CSBot is a little too dumb to cope with a template that's split on more than one line before the arguments. — Coren ^(talk) 00:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess the simplest solution is to ask the editor to stop using line breaks! I'll drop him a message. Cheers, – Toon 13:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

CSB down?

Hi Coren, there hasn't been any new listing in almost a day. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And on cue, it reports something. Sorry for the bother. MLauba (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Indians of Iowa

Including an alphabetical list of the historically known Indian tribes in Iowa would not be considered a violation of copyright law under a reasonable definition. There are a finite number of tribes in Iowa and there is only one way to list them alphabetically. The fact that Foster's list is the basis for this list is irrelevant, he did not put these tribes in Iowa and a full citation for Foster's work is given. Furthermore, later edits have modified this list. Bill Whittaker (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A punishment for befitting of the crime

I will try and keep this short as I am sure you are very busy. This topic ban makes no sense. This dispute is not about article content but is beyond that but is personal and is occuring on user talk pages, character assassinating people, playing games and in my case I admit getting distressed, losing my cool and personalising. Surely a more logical approach would be to pass a motion stating, any personalising of disputes, disruption of the editing environment or abuse of editors time will result in a block of up to one week, extended to a topic ban or a block of 3 months or something after several violations. I have from the outset practically begged the arbcom to pass motions to resolve disruptive behaviour, I still feel this is the right approach. To propose a topic ban when for the first time myself and scuro are making progress and when the recent dispute is not even about article content is throwing the baby out with the bath water and may not even be effective judging by some ongoing drama that I am not involved in. I could fully accept a motion which was to me likely to be effective and is aimed at addressing the actual violations. A topic ban seems like taking an anthill out with a shotgun. No disrespect intended, I hope you have a good day.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My suggested proposal should have included the addition of a voluntary topic ban turned into an enforced one if I violate it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: CorenSearchBot for Opatija Circuit

I believe the web site cited by CorenSearchBot was copied from the Wikipedia page, however, I have no proof.Orsoni (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In reality, CSB picked up a mirror who replicated a page that was deleted because it infringed on a different site. The article has accordingly been re-deleted now. MLauba (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Page Citation Issue

I apparently didn't site the International Home + Housewares Show page properly. I added another citation. Where do I put more citations to show that the text is all from that page? I removed the message until I get more information on how to properly handle this. Thank you LizGere (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)LizGere

Shalom from Hakham Hayim Malkhasy

Shalom, I read your notice that you found the similar info that I put into "Abraham Kefeli" in an other site. Thus, I am the member of the International Institute of the Crimean Karaites, and I have all Copy Rights given me by the director of the Institute Prof. Dr. Valentin Kefeli. Moreover, Abraham Kefeli is my friend.

Kol tuv Hayim—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayim Malkhasy (talk • contribs)

Dahl's Foods

The article has been extensively rewritten. _{—Mattofwashington (talk) 05:05 13 August 2009 (UTC)}

Camilo Polavieja

I didn't copy it in a internal website, i copy it on a external website in http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Camilo_Polavieja but I only edit the Marques de Polavieja and (1837-1914)

Mexican Naval Aviation

Is it possible if i can paraphrase the article?Homan05

Anthrax War

I wrote an entry using the filmmakers' website -- with their permission since they are attending a film festival next month and showing this film -- info from their website was used on infowars.com -- the bot discovered the infowars website -- I've written a temporary article which is much shorter.Tjmayerinsf (talk)

Re: Roger Pederson

In regards to the copyright issue, it seems it was because of the official citation, which I've found in this context usually falls under the category of public domain. Packerfansam (talk) 18 August 2009

The New American Century

Same problem as happened with Anthrax Wars -- I am creating this for an upcoming screening in California, and am using *only* material from the filmmaker's official website at BuenaOndaFilms(dot)com -- the info has been copied on informationwars and other websites.Tjmayerinsf (talk)

correct names

I didn duplicate the name of "Tabriz municipality" and "Saat tower" also "Ark of Tabriz" and "Arg of Tabriz" "Saat tower" is just a part of the building of "Tabriz municipality" so "saat tower" is incorrect name also "Arg" is incorrect and the word "Ark" is correct, pls delet or redirect this two incorrect pages:"Saat tower" to "Tabriz municipality" and "Arg of Tabriz" to "Ark of Tabriz". I am an Tabrizian editor of wikipedia and I know the correct names, pls have a look to my userpage and my works about this page and my pix.

Regards,

Warning on "James Marion West"

Hi, I turned the James Marion West article into a disambig since the father and son are both famous (the original article was about the son. In the middle of my edits your bot complained that there were two articles that were the same and your message said I should offer an explanation here.

FYI: An overzealous editor whom I presumed received notification through the bot created a circular redirect and destroyed some of my changes while I was doing this. I undid his/her change and hopefully there won't be any more to that.

-- mcorazao

Beads of courage

Sorry about the copyright violation. I rewrote the article. Please remove the copyright violation error. Thanks. - BennyK95 - Talk 23:46, October 7 2009 (UTC)

A request

Dear Coren,

I know very well your time is very short. But I believe your assistance in the issue described below would not require much time and would help very much to settle it. For my part, I would like to assure you that I would value tremendously anything you would suggest/tell, even if there will be something I wouldn't like. I ensure you I will give the maximum attention to everything you say.

I would like to ask you to look over the article Lucian Croitoru and specifically about the edits of ‎User:Anti-Nationalist. I have serious doubts his edits there are in good faith (he never edited that article, nor any other article about Romania before, and all he does is a revert). But let's suppose I am wrong. I need a third opinion, someone neutral, with no personal gains to get, who could tell us (or at least me, because I assure you, I will totally listen.) his opinion. Is that sentence so important to stay in the lead and can not go down in the text?

Thank you very much for everything and ... anything. Dc76\^talk 20:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If I could ask you even for a greater favor, could you please look at the somewhat related article Klaus Iohannis and [10]. I claim that Anonimu misquotes from the sources. But if you tell me he doesn't, that would settle it. (The sources were not added by him, he just copyedited in the article. IMHO his copyedit changes the meaning from the sources.) I will consider your opinion to be an authoritative third opinion. So basically, whatever you will say, that will be. At least from my part. Dc76\^talk 21:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if I were to AGF and assume this is not block shopping, I can't ignore several misrepresentations. The article about Croitoru was created 6 days ago, so the claim that X user "never edit it before, thus is acting in bad faith" is moot. Also, all facts in the two articles are sources, and if there are no footnotes in the lead of those articles is because the same facts are already sourced in the body of the article and the WP:MOS doesn't require referencing every time a sourced fact is mentioned. Dc76 disruptively added unneeded tags to Klaus Iohannis, refusing to check the sources (the fact they are in Romanian is not an excuse, since according to Dc76's user page he's a native speaker). Moreover he repeatedly called other editor's constructive edits (and de facto consensus) "vandalism" in his edit summaries: [11], [12], [13]. Note also his more than evident COI: [14].Anonimu (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1) I am not block shopping. I have never asked any formal action against Anti-Nationalist! I ask Coren for a third opinion. That is totally different!!!

2) I claimed he did not edit any article related to Romania before today. That is different from "did not edit this particular article created 6 days ago". But I do not want to enter polemics. It was a simple question mark. It is not for me to make judgements.

3) The one fact tag I added to the lead of Klaus Iohannis is because I believe the sentence as it is now misrepresents what sources says. The best solution, IHMO, would be simply to reformulate that sentence in the lead. Simple and easy.

4) I beg to differ that the tags I added to Klaus Iohannis are disruptive. On the contrary, they indicate precisely where the present words contradict the sources.

5) I did check all sources. Half of the sources were added by me in the first place. Obviously, I checked everything.

6) About me giving attention that something might constitue vandalism. Please, read what my comments say:

• "kept the good sentence. reverted vandalism: attributing personal opinions to newspapers and misquoting." Translation: The previous edit contained a constructive sentence that I kept. But I indicated honestly that the rest I reverted. I called it vandalism for three reasons. First of all, personal opinions of the editor, opinions not present in the source were added. Second, the source was misquoted, and the misquote was added to the lead of a BLP of a Prime Minister designate. Third, this was revert, i.e. the editor insisted.
• "pls, do not remove this, it's vandalism, I will report you if you do again". Translation: a word was being repeatedly removed, 3 or 4 times, word whose absence totally changed the meaning of the sentence. The editor that removed that word did not say the word was wrong. (If you ask him now, he would say the word "preeminent" is correct, the economist Lucian Croitoru is very preeminent.) On the contrary, simultaneously he edited the article Lucian Croitoru and he did not question the same word there. The word was removed because in order to change the meaning of the sentence. It is not nice when someone does repeatedly such changes of the meaning of the sentence. Personally, I considered it vandalism. That editor did not contradict or question my comment.
• "this is already mentioned below. I would like to remind you of WP:BLP. Adding political opinions in the lead is a breach of official policy. In a sense, vandalism." - This is self-evident. It is an attention by me to that editor that adding a political opinion in the lead of a BLP (btw repeatedly) is in a sense vandalism. That editor did not contradict or question my comment.

Finally, this is not part of any discussion about content, but a trivial good night farewell said with a dose of humor. I can explain the detail of this humor if necessary. Dc76\^talk 23:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Coren,

I am happy to tell you that both articles Lucian Croitoru and Klaus Iohannis have just been resolved. I would like to point out that this is due to 3 things:

• An immense mediation help by User:Rje. Very patient and forthcoming guy. I would award him any medal, was I not against all medals out of principle. I highly recommend him! He is an excellent resource.
• User:Urban XII and me realized we misunderstood each other's approaches. After we realized these misunderstandings, we reached perfect solutions in very short time. Conclusion: assumption of bad faith can poison anything. AGF is gold! When we feel we can not AGF, editors should talk with each other, try to ignore for a day all past, and give it a new try. It can work wonders!
• Urban XII is actually a very reasonable guy. He was ready to compromise. When both persons are ready to move forward towards each other, it's half the battle, even more than half. Finding the compriomise between people who seek a compromise can take just one hour. We achieved it in 1 hour in two articles!

Unfortunately, Anti-Nationalist and Anonimu were not helpful. IMHO, they exacerbated my misunderstandings with Urban XII. Let me hope that my (personal) opinion would be wrong in the future. I want to thank you very much for the possibility to use your talk page. Once I mentioned them here, both Anti-Nationalist and Anonimu became less aggressive in the articles. Combined with the 3 factors mentioned above, it did help. Two lame edit wars averted!!! :-) :-) :-) I am so glad I can bear anything from Anti-Nationalist and Anonimu now. Conflicts 0 - Wikipedia 1. :-) Dc76\^talk 02:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Again a serious bad faith representation. Is not enough Dc76 calls constructive editors vandals, he goes around accusing people of any misdoings he can think of only to get the upper hand in content disputes. As anyone can see, the agreed wording is nothing but a slightly reworded version of the consensus already extant (as supported by me, Anti-Nationalist and Urban XII) when Dc76 began edit warring and calling people's edits vandalism. Anonimu (talk) 07:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Coren,

I would like to reply only to you, for the sole purpose of presenting both sides of the story. I sincerely don't want to engage in any discussion with Anonimu leading to pointless inflamation of spirits.

• I would like to repeat that I accused Urban XII (not Anonimu or Anti-Naitonalist) of edits similar to vandalism (I did not call anyone personally vandal, and I would like to mention this is a very important distinction for me: vandalism (impersonal) vs vandal (personal) ). The fact is Urban XII did not protest against that, and that I and Urban XII came to the realization that we have misunderstood each other (especially I misunderstood him). I assumed he could read Romanian, but he only could read English. I assumed he read all sources, but he only read the few English ones. After looking over the English sources once again, I immediately realized that I seriously misunderstood Urban XII edits and I apologized to him (he was misinformed because the sources were incomplete, but I assumed he was informed). I would like to mention that Urban XII has gone out of his way to reach a consensus in the two article, which I tremendously appreciate and I would like very much to develop on the recent positive experience we two had. The existing version, IMHO is nothing close to what Anonimu and Anti-Nationalist blindly supported. I repeat: IMHO. I really don't want to argue more. It does a disservice to the good environment in the community to argue. it is just my side of the story for the record, nothing more.
• May I respectfully ask you to ask Anonimu to try not to inflame spirits again. I can take any accusation from him, as long as it is just that: polemics. Please, believe me, the last thing I want now is more inflamation. Anonimu, I beg you, let's just cool off. Dc76\^talk 11:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To be noted the vigorous protest coming from Urban XII when Dc76 undeservedly called his edits "vandalism" (not "similar to vandalism"): [15], again showing Dc76 severe misrepresentation of the positions of editors he has content disputes with.

As for the supposed flame wars: I'm not suicidal to unilaterally disengage when others go around on admin talk pages claiming I'm misquoting references, inflaming discussions and editing to promote an ideology.Anonimu (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Coren, if you're going to be looking at this, please do compare the discussions at Talk:Lucian Croitoru with Dc76's framing of the situation here – I think it's more than enough to let it speak for itself. Thanks! Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To be noted Anonimu's lack of good faith following an explanation from Dc76, his aggressive stances, and his generally tendentious conduct, in spite of an explicit injunction by ArbCom to behave "at all times impeccably": [16], [17]. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now the above is definitely block shopping after the failed attempt at it last week. Should I add that Dc76 and Biruitorul are both members of the secret WP:EEML, and that they have explicitly discussed how to get me banned by gaming the system?Anonimu (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Anonimu, please don't make me remind you of the time a source was in error, you used it to support your position on Romania, and when I contacted the author and confirmed the error, you accused me of lying. When I reproduced his mail back to me, you insisted the author must write WP to indicate there is a problem with his book, until then you would continue to quote the source as published. The EEML proceedings aren't carte blanche to declare open season on all articles and editors Eastern European. Apologies to Coren for the talk page litter. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  23:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would anyone bring out out of blue something that had happened more than two 2 years ago(!!)? If it's not yet obvious, yes, Vecrumba is also part of the same secret list.Anonimu (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. This is not an appropriate forum for this dispute, and you're both veering far from a productive discussion.

Individual arbitrators' talk pages are usually not appropriate places to bring disputes (whatever their nature) since we are not inclined to intervene directly in cases — especially when they relate to recent or ongoing arbitration cases. — Coren ^(talk) 10:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for bringing the dispute here. Dc76\^talk 15:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Secretary of State (England)

This follows splitting page per Talk:Secretary of State (United Kingdom)#Split needed, and text previously at Secretary of State (United Kingdom) must have been copied from that source. I have now rewritten it for Secretary of State (England). Moonraker2 (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

False positive?

This tag seems suspect - [18] - I couldn't find the sentences used in the article on the page anywhere. Exxolon (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

CSBot's accuracy does go down as the article gets shorter (though normally the criteria for matching are made to be more stringent because of this). I'm actually surprised that a stub this short wasn't discarded out of hand in the first place; it must be exactly just long enough.

At any rate, there will always be some false positives here and there; this is a marginal enough case that I'll look into the logs to see if there is something worth tweaking though. — Coren ^(talk) 18:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for a decision - Socionics arbitration between rmcnew and tcaudillig

Can you guys please hurry up and make a decision? This is just getting more and more rediculous the more it drags on and tcaullidig keeps talking loads of crap about me concerning things that happened outside of wikipedia and is now even claiming to have in his posession some supposed database of a website I owned and never gave him permission to have. I think he is just bullshitting about it or in the event he does have it may have obtained it illegally through some slight of hand methods and is now trying to blackmail me with it.

And also, I would be perfectly alright with receiveing a 3 month ban from wikipedia per my own request, as editing here gets sort of addictive and I think I should have a break from this place. Feel free to give tcaullldig a ban too for other reasons. He seems to have given wikipedia a couple already. Ad hominem attacks, insulting other editors, being uncooperative with other editors, and claiming to have illegially stolen an internet database, personal, and other information from specific editors with blackmail threats being legitimate reaons for that ban. This information against tcaulldig is all recorded and accessable from a talk page in the arbitration area. Thanks. --Rmcnew (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've posted here, and on the talk pages of the two parties. Rmcnew, can you please in future post to the case talk pages, or to my talk page if urgent, rather than to multiple arbitrators? I should have proposals up on the workshop soon, but need to review the new evidence. Coren, this section was posted in the wrong place on this page, if you want to move it down. Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Likely false positive Samfya District

please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samfya_District&action=history, the content came from Samfya town article, is there since 2007. Can CSB address that, e.g. perform search in old pages of WP, recent deletions, and then event walk down in an article like Samfya to see when that part was inserted into WP? TrueColour (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is in fact not a false positive, since you forked content without attribution :) In order to move content from one article to another, you need to maintain attribution, this is best done by noting the source article in an edit summary at the target article, the target article in an edit summary at the source article, and by adding the {{Copied}} template to both articles' talk pages.

The rationale is explained at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. MLauba (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable severity of Piotrus remedies

Please be aware of my comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision#Unacceptable severity of Piotrus remedies. I would be greatly interested in any response that you have to offer (and please do not feel compelled to reply with haste). Yours, AGK 21:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Contents Similar to Website

You have check it again as when you write a summary every websites are going to have in same way 1.As about a hero 2.there is a problem 3. his senior official select him to the mission 4. he goes and finds everything 5.now he will save the world. but it is not exactly the same as on website.Joe3b3 (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Just posting a note before I delete the copyright concern left by the bot. My source as I've indicated in the External links of the Signe 3 article is NASA's National Space Science Data Center. I wonder if http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_sdat/aura.htm did the same thing. Marshallsumter (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Repeating the immediate above note regarding Hinotori. As I put under External links: "The content of this article was adapted and expanded from NASA's National Space Science Data Center Hinotori url=http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1981-017A (Public Domain)". I will be deleting the copyright concern left by the bot. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the bot-generated note. I actually meant to title the article OSO 4 and initially did not realize that I was on OSO-4. The content has been moved to OSO 4 per original intent and a redirect has been placed on OSO-4. I will remove the bot-generated comment. Marshallsumter (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Giacomo Luigi Brignole

Hi. I have removed the copyright notice made by your bot at Giacomo Luigi Brignole. The information I cited was from two different sources; both of which are generally accepted as being in the public domain. The information sourced was further referenced and changed (that and it was fairly similarly done at most other similar articles).

Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Coren/Archives/2009. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see where this dispute involves me? As a rule, sitting arbitrators try to avoid involvement in "normal" disputes for a number of reasons. — Coren ^(talk) 10:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Luckyheart (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Hello,this is luckyheart,my article were boot by coren it's my own work definitely

Luckyheart (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)i am hundred percent sure that this is my own work,ive never been on any site which talks about jhoeni darren,my only purpose here is to make an article for jhoeni darren,cause there are so many people who did not see any information about him though he's a great artist.Luckyheart (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

CSB II, SCV reorganization?

Hi Coren,

Without wanting to appear nagging, since you never had an opportunity to get back on the changes proposed at WT:SCV#Summary: Bot modification wishlist or on the feasibility of getting CSB to check newly patrolled revisions with the implementation of flagged revisions, would you mind if we took our wishlist to WP:BOTREQ?

Cheers, MLauba (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, crap, I knew I forgot something! Tell you what, I'll be able to do this tomorrow evening, and I'm setting aside this time specifically for this. — Coren ^(talk) 22:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues

Hi Coren,

I just received an automatic message from a bot operated by toy, that the article 10th International Architecture Exhibition which I just created may have copyright issues. I'm listing some awards and have added the jury's motivations in quotation makrs ("...") and that seems to be the problem. IMO that shouldn't be controversial and I don't think reformulating the comments is an alternative, that would be too much work since I'm trying to add info on all the past Venice Biebbales of Architecture (those I will be able to find online info on), which I find highly relevant - right now it only provides info on American pavillions but none on the winners. Furthermore, I think there should be a wider access to quote from something like a jury's motivation since it is a primary source and not "text stolen". If I am mistaken here and you find the quotations too comprehensive, I urge you not just to delete the page but simply remove the quotes or drop me a note so I can do it. They are not essential but just informative as to what the winning projects were about and rewarded for. RegardsRamblersen (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

CSB

Hi Coren. I'm just wondering if you know why the bot didn't pick up the copyright violations at The Art Garfunkel Album and GARFUNKEL (Art Garfunkel album). Regards, Theleftorium ^{Happy Halloween!} 22:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to guess why any specific case failed to match. CSBot, as an automated process, is necessarily imperfect— it relies on search engine results from fragments of the page guessed to be significant to find pages to match against, and uses a fuzzy match algorithm to try to decide when one thing is a (possibly slightly modified or reformatted) copy of another; two things which can fail.

In practice, CSBot cannot guarantee matches, although it does a fairly good job most of the time at skimming the big and obvious stuff. — Coren ^(talk) 23:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Naval Historical Society of Australia - copyright issue

Not sure whether I've done a woopsy or not. I have copied text as found by your bot, but as it establishes the bona fides of the Society and its source is cited, do I need to take further action, such as rephrasing? Please advise. Thanks. Folks at 137 (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)