Jump to content

User talk:Coren/Archives/2008/March

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Re Division No.3 Manitoba same as Pembina Valley.

This is true, what I am trying to do is to transfer the correct information into the already existing but not completed page so when you click on the Number on the map is connects you to the page. Hope this is OK Thanks Doug —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darbel2 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify this a bit further, the numbered divisions are not the same thing as the named regions. By nature, they're going to cover a fair bit of the same information since they're different types of geographic divisions within the same Canadian province, but the numbered divisions are legally mandated Census divisions of Canada, while the named regions are informal service regions used by the provincial government, each of which encompasses more than one of the census divisions. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:"Jerk, Beefy!"

Thanks for blocking User:"Jerk, Beefy!". I was beginning to despair that assuming good faith overruled critical analysis. No doubt they will be back with a different user name and the same tactics. Should the diatribe on their user page be blanked or reverted? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. As a rule, only highly offensive, libelous material is removed preemptively— in this case it will serve, for a time, as a record of his actions. — Coren (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Block of Nitin

nitin (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Hi corin, I created a page on yogah karmsu kaushalam and your bot marked it as copyrighted thing from a site. It is actually a verse from Bhagwad Gita which is a holy book of hinduism. A lot of institutes use these verse as their motto.

Geek is more accurate; not quite the same as nerd. — Coren (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


One Million Roses

Hi corin, I have created the page One Million Roses and I use the "WikidAddicts" as a source of the casts and characters names, production crew and I already posted where the source came from. Thanks and if you have problems with that article, please post it to my user talk page. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nivrem110694 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Blondie Forbes and Murph Harrold

Hi there,

The bot flagged these 2 stub articles that I started as copies of [1] - I'm not sure why? The articles are stubs - only two sentences - and are nothing like the small blurbs found at the pokerpages site. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Did you mean to post this under another topic heading? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I posted above about Forbes and Harrold... ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
CorenSearchBot is mostly interested in proportion of the similarity, not in total length (although that factors in somewhat). The stubs were short, but identical, to the found page— hence the warning. But I wouldn't worry overmuch about two sentences if you intend to flesh out the articles. — Coren (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Message by Pensil left without header

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensil (talk • contribs) 13:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Assassination of a High School President

I removed the copyrighted text from Assassination of a High School President. --Squishy Vic discussion contributions 08:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The material on "Ganci" was originally written and submitted by me, as indicated on the Australian site. I own the copyright and therefore it should be allowed on wiki. doctordotcalm@comcast.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctordotcalm (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Mike Boettcher

The info could have been copied from elsewhere, I just created the page to gert the 2x paragraphs off the bottom of the general page War correspondent where it was out of place Hugo999 (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I have read the policy from top to bottom, and I do not see a specific prohibition against full protection of a user talk page on request if the user has left Wikipedia. It does say (forgive the wikilawyering) that semi-protection may not be used at request, ostensibly in the normal course of Wikipedia activity. I am open for persuasion, however. —Kurykh 01:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Philip Kapleau photos

There are three images I uploaded to WikiCommons found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Philip_Kapleau which need to be deleted, also. I uploaded them believing User:Golgofrinchian had released the copyright. I was suspicious, but the GNU licenses seemed straightforward enough. This also: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rochester_Zen_center_front_door.jpg

The other photos in the Rochester Zen center category appear to have actually been taken by User:Golgofrinchian.

You may also want to have a look at this image, Image:Kjolhede.jpg. I believe it may, too, be a copyright violation.(Mind meal (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

Re: E.O. Green School shooting

It seems there is a slight misunderstanding - I've never edited that article, I simply offered the opinion on the Help Desk that the name should be included. I do understand your point, and hopefully the ongoing discussions (and criminal trials) will sort this out. Thanks for the update, though. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Multied.com

Re:User talk:Brad101#USS_Gypsy, http://www.multied.com/Navy/patrol/gypsy.html , the majority of multied.com links are ripped off entries from DANFS posing to lure people to buy things. navalhistory.com is another such URL. --Brad (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Philip Kapleau photos

Some of the photos were mine and the others I had received permission to use. Also you deleted a photo of the building I took with my own camera. By citing a reference to what a ticket is does not enable me to see what the complaint was in the first place, or who was complaining. I enjoy the link to what an OTRS is, but howabout a link to where I can look up the specific complaint? . Without regard to me you deleted some photos I took.Golgofrinchian (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

nevermind I will remove every photo I am the owner of from the Wikipedia/wikicommons website.Golgofrinchian (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) It is possible that some of the pictures I deleted might have been yours; but given than many were under false or incorrect licenses (you can not upload a picture to which someone claims copyright and claim it is your own work and that you place it in the public domain), it was impossible for me to know which of those, if any, were actually yours.
Its ok I am rectifying the error right now.Golgofrinchian (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Atmakur (Warangal district)

Hi. I moved some text from Category:Mandals in Warangal district to a new page – Atmakur (Warangal district). I was registered as similar to the cat by CorenSearchBot. Since it was an intentional copy I just deleted the template. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 15:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Deiparae Virginis Mariae

Thanks! I removed the quotes. They were from a diffent source. I just left my own text. good enough for the time beeing. Thanks again --Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:E.O. Green School shooting

Are you aware that you removed 2 comments from the talk page when you replied here? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see your reply on the talk page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont know...

I did everything with my oun words, i dont know why it happends...Text is the same, there is just numbers to be changed, i dont see the reason for deleting of text...i did not copi that from somewhere else. Anyway , thanke you, sorry for my english :))! all the best!

--Boris Godunov (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Junkie XL Booming Release

I am one the employees with JunkieXL and we are trying to keep his website updated. The msorp.com webiste that was tagged as pledgerized was actually the press release, which I have approval to use on Wikipedia. You can call our office directly at 310-396-4740 to verify if needed. But to let you know this is accurate and public information.

-- This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Booming Back at You, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.msopr.com/?q=node/3550. 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 (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC) --

Junkie500 (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Junkie500 3/4/2008

Bad laundry

Thanks for your message [2]. I am almost a little embarrassed that we let that situation go on for so long. Coincidentally enough, a brand new editor has some unusually skilled edits to a couple of articles where I have been a heavy contributor. At first blush, they appear to share a curiously similar modus operandi of wikification and text deletion. Perhaps something to keep an eye on, if you were so inclined. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

E.O. Green School Shooting

On that article's talk page, you wrote: I feel WP:BLP applies. . . . Adding it again will end up in the article being protected, the editor blocked, or both. You said you feel, which suggests you're not an administrator handing down a ruling from on high but rather stating your own opinion. Two points:

(1) Your stated opinion ignores the consensus to the contrary which was reached over a couple days of intense discussion re privacy issues, minors, and WP:BLP.

(2) Based again only on your opinion, you issue a general warning to all editors and potential editors. If you believe that specific editors deserve such a warning, warning them on their user talk pages would seem appropriate, but placed on the article's talk page and directed toward everyone, it really sounds like a threat and is likely to have a chilling effect, since few of us would care to tangle with an administrator.

May I respectfully suggest that an opinion be sought from WP's legal counsel as to whether there are any potential liabilities involved with including the suspect's name? If there aren't, then I would agree entirely with the consensus that was reached: if it's good enough for every news outlet in the world, it's good enough for WP. (For the record, I have made no edits whatsoever to the article—just playing observer.) Rivertorch (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You may suggest it, but there is little point. In the case of BLP, we err on the side of caution. Administrators never "hand rulings from on high", but I made this move in my capacity as an administrator to enforce WP:BLP. Two other, independent, admins agreed enough to protect the article behind me.
As for the chilling effect of the notice on the article's talk page, that was the intent. Not because I am an administrator, but because the policies on biographies of living persons is a serious matter. In the case of that article, no cogent argument can be made that including the suspect's name is required or useful, so the only course of action is to err on the side of caution and not include it. — Coren (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Administrators don't have any more weight than regular editors on editorial matters, and the section you quoted of BLP suggests that discussion on the talkpage should be welcomed by editors attempting to enforce BLP. What you did on the talkpage wasn't discussion, it was a threat. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 04:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Coren, most of us who have been here for any length of time are well aware that WP:BLP is a serious matter. During the discussion on this topic over the past several days, several editors demonstrated how seriously they take it. Apparently, that discussion was a waste of time. I do know a little something about the duties and responsibilities of administrators, and that's why I was so taken aback by the way you've approached this. It appeared very much as though you were handing down a ruling from on high—your own ruling. And for those editors who had diligently pursued and attained consensus, as well as for those of us who thus far were just watching from the sidelines but had considered contributing to the article, your message was very clear: consensus meant nothing, and our opinions meant less. I thought that was unfortunate, and I still do. Enough so that I'm actually moved to bellyache about it on your talk page, which is something I've never done before.
Let me ask you something. Please don't think I'm trying to tell you how to do your job—I have considerable respect for admins and don't envy much of what you're faced with—but consider: the suspect's name is practically a household word among those who follow the news; his name was in the article repeatedly, most recently for an extended period. What was the rush? What would have been the harm in acknowledging the discussion that took place and noting that apparent consensus had been reached that WP:BLP wasn't violated, then reopening the discussion and stating your own opinion? That would have showed you had confidence in our ability to listen to reason, and it would have opened the possibility of a new, different consensus being reached, perhaps one that was entirely in line with your opinion. It would have shown that you consider us fellow editors instead of non-administrators. It would have demonstrated that you assume good faith about us, just as we do about you. (I assume it, anyway, and I think erring on the side of caution re BLP isn't necessarily a bad thing at all.)
As for cogent arguments for including the suspect's name, not only can they be made—they already have been made. The obvious one is that the name is readily available to anyone who wants to know, since it has been disseminated already by responsible media outlets (reliable sources all) on the Web, in print, and on broadcast news. If Wikipeda is going to include articles on current events, it seems preposterous to redact suspect names that have appeared widely in the news. If the intent is to prevent harm to suspect and family, it's clearly pointless. I thought that was obvious, so I was guessing there might be some legal concerns bouncing around on the backchannels, which could put everything in a very different light. In any case, this is the first time I've ever been subject to an admin's chilling effect—intentional or otherwise—and I have to say it's a bit unnerving. You talk on your user page about keeping the community's trust, but I'm afraid that exercising prior restraint by issuing threats to block responsible editors is a dubious path to that goal. Rivertorch (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
As you make have seen, Neil has since reduced the protection. A consensus has emerged that the name will be included, and I'm not going to fight it - which doesn't mean I need to agree with it. As for the argument "everybody else is doing it"... well, I'm not going to comment on its substance, just point out that it might be argued to be an argument to avoid not including it if there was a compelling reason to, not a reason to include it per se. — Coren (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. The pessimist in me is guessing we'll need additional consensuses (consensi?) on the exact same question over the coming weeks, but I hope twice will suffice. ;) Thanks for listening and replying. Rivertorch (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, that's not really a latin word at all but an old french construction con-sensus (together-feeling). The sensus root is latin, and if you really wanted to pluralize it that way, you need to take into account that it is a supine, and therefore restricted to accusative and ablative. So "consensūs" (that a long u, you might reasonably transliterate as concensuus in english) in the accusative or "consensibus" in the ablative (which would only valid if the you were moving away from the consensibus.  :-) Concensuus, then. — Coren (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to add to the nerd-factor, I should also point out that you would use the ablative if you meant "by way/in the manner of concensuses" or "during the time of the concensuses". — Coren (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Consilium consensibus. This should be the Wikipedia motto! Decision/action/diplomacy by consensus!  :-) Enough latin nerdness for today. — Coren (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

{{NCI-cancer-dict}}

Hello! I see your bot is still ignoring the {{NCI-cancer-dict}} public-domain attribution tag. In addition to the tag, each article tagged with this contains an external link back to the NCI Cancer Dictionary entry, so you can easily verify the public domain nature of the source. -- The Anome (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Random Warning

You can see the warning on my talk page. Firstly, the section name seems a little messed up. Second, although I had been trying to fix some vandalism, the page history does not show me as a contributor. I'm not quite sure how your bot found me! ;) Thanks. Tiddly-Tom 18:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is random indeed. Well, the template is broken because of the "=" in the title which broke substitution, at least to some degree. But the random part is that as far as I can tell, CSBot never even looked at that article (it only checks them at the time of creation), and never attempted to tag the article itself or report it to WP:SCV. I'm going to go check the logs to see if I can figure out what went wrong. — Coren (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Very strange... ;) Thanks for removing it from my talk page. Tiddly-Tom 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Got it! You created Two two = five at 13:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC), and that was then swiftly deleted by Elkman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as an obvious error while reverting vandalism. CSBot saw the accidental copy of Two + two = five, tagged you (obscurely because of the name), but since you couldn't see what was the source of the copy, and the destination had already been deleted (and thus gone from your visible contribution)... confusion ensued! — Coren (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice one. Why would I create a page with a diffrent name :s Is it a bug with the tool - do you think? Tiddly-Tom 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing you used Twinkle and it got confused by the '+'-as-part-of-the-name thinking it was a '+'-to-replace-spaces-in-url and posted your attempt at reversion at the wrong place. — Coren (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Coren, I have reviewed your comment and have made significant changes to the text... however, please note that I was using my own written text as it appeared on url's that I specifically own.

The sources provided at the bottom of my text should provide verifiable information for the biography.

I believe there is enough change of the text to not "alert" the copyright infringement comparative software within Wiki. Please let me know if i need to make any other changes.

Respectfully, (I wish comparative software like this were available for products coming from China!)


Wendy Rosen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsymom5 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy close a bad faith nomination?

Not really too different than last time; different player. There is ample evidence that this is directed at me; User:Pixelface has tried to drag me into the TV E&C 2 case, and would appear to be taking a shot at me in retaliation for my having participated in AfDs that followed his many de-prodings. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sylhetī Nāgarī

I tried to copy the content of the Sylheti Nagari page to Sylhetī Nāgarī and got this message from your bot: "This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sylhetī Nāgarī, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Sylheti_Nagari. 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."

The bot is mistaken, indeed. The other website copied it from the existing Wikipedia page, from which I took the contents as well! Joost (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat discussion

I don't understand. --Dweller (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It was meant in jest, strictly as a silly reminder to just go ahead and do the Right Thing, not try the circular exercise of trying to get consensus on what consensus means. It did, however, fall quite flat. — Coren (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

BCB discussion

Just a heads up - you may wish to consider revising your comments - I think you were under the impression people were complaining about BCB's fair use work when it was in fact about a completely unrelated matter over which it is almost unanimous consensus that BCB was operating outside of (even in contravention of) policy, and had never sought any approval to do so nor informed anyone before stripping thousands of red-linked categories which had not been CfD'd from articles. He has admitted to these activities (initially trying to pass it off as "CfD work"), and has in fact had to be blocked twice before finally agreeing to work in the spirit and letter of bot policy and undo his mass damage. The current comments where they are located are unfortunately opening you up to ridicule. Orderinchaos 21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A bot of yours marked an article I've just created

I've created an article using the Catholic Encyclopedia and your bot has marked it as if it had been stolen from another page which actually copied all from my source. The Catholic Encyclopedia is available at Wikisource. Gothbag (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Pristina not Priština

Pristina not Priština (Kendobs (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

copy from another wiki

I authored the same article on another wiki, but it doesn't get much traffic there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gholmesnc (talk • contribs) 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

pholus

PholusWatcher (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC) The page your bot identified as the possible copyrighted source for Pholus has content taken from wikipedia article itself and gives credit to that effect. Your bot flagged the new Pholus (mythology) page after a disambiguation was created and the content copied.

BAG/BRFA issues

Please read and, is possible, discuss :). Thanks, Martinp23 18:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I used some standart terms in algebraic geometry such as motivic cohomology, moduli theory, intersection theory and enumerative geometry. These is a common terminology in the field of algebraic geometry and it appears again. I don't think using these terms that refer to the fields where Prof. Kleiman works is plagiarism. There isn't a single synonym of these terms so they may appear in other articles, but this is scientific terminology. Swetko (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Swetko

Speedy Deletion of PrimeQ Article

I wasn't able to check what was going on at Wikipedia for the past few weeks for personal reasons. I noticed that you speedy deleted the article for Primeq on March 1, 2008. I recall that there were some discussions about the article in the past and I even recall that I cleaned up the article once. I stated that I would vote to keep it in an AfD but won't "fight" over it, if the AfD would result in the articles deletion. Since the article got some attention and because other editors spend time on it to wikify it, wouldn't you agree, that a formal AfD procedure would be more appropriate than a speedy deletion? How did that happen btw? Could you fill me into the details of it? Thanks and Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in on Wikipedia_talk:User_page#Nude_images

I think it is a bit one sided POV of the editors who are trying to impose censorship without even allowing to establish a consesus for their proposal. I tried my best to point it out to them, but they started an ANI thread about me being an unproductive part of their discussion. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Igorberger Wikipedia is a collecion of POVs and the sum of those POVs is the NPOV. It is a real shame of what Wikipedia is becoming because of zealous believes of a few editors. And if anyone even questions their believes they go to ANI to accuse an editor. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Vampire Warrior

I read the message you left on Wknight's talk page back in December of 2007. Were you one of the editors who expressed concern over the "suicide note" I left? I want to apologize for that. I was using it to get away from this e-stalker I had. I wanted to make him think I was gone for good so he'd bug off. I haven't heard much from the stalker in months. But anyways, a cop showed up to my house to check on me after a few editors in the Niagara region (St. Catharines) expressed concern. I posted an explanation here. So yeah...just wanna apologize. I realized this is several months overdue, but I've been busy lately. 69.159.58.111 (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Organization for Animal Dignity not meeting WP:EL

Hello Coren,

I saw you deleted my link addition to "Zoophilia" with the link to the Organization for Animal Dignity again. - Sorry for causing the trouble, I wasn't aware it doesn't meet some kind of standards: WP:EL I looked up WP:EL, but that's a long list. If you have the time, I'd be curious what exact standard the Organization for Animal Dignity does not meet.

Thanks, 80.238.132.90 (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)B.Y. 2008-03-09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.238.132.90 (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot

I assume your comment at WT:BAG was about your ANIBot. I think your problem there is that people aren't sure exactly how it would work, whether they would lose the up-to-the-second watch and maybe most of all, the quick scroll-through to see what's going on.

If I post a thread to ANI, what happens? Does it stay on my own watchlist? How do I go back to it? What reassurance do I have that someone is even looking at it? 'Cause guaranteed, if I post at ANI, I'm checking every three minutes for a response. (It appears to take betweem 8 and 1800 minutes, there's another thing - could the post be taken by someone as "checking tnis"?)

There's your two different user perspectives. Next question: is this an opt-in move or is this a quantum shift where tomorrow is a new era? How do I know you won't completely screw up ANI? Whatever you answer, prove it. Where's your simulation, the page from January?

I thought that bot proposal was not bad, I had a few different questions about it and watched for a while. Agree that it hit the rocks of apathy (or prudence). You need to grab three involved people, work the whole process out and do a full simulation, then a live two-way trial. You picked a big one, big task, big risks, big rewards. I'll help where I can. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User:The Random Editor

I noticed the user page is protected. I'd recommend he be removed from the categories he's currently in, since he quit Wikipedia months ago. WP:Eguor admins for example. Enigma msg! 18:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Coren, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I blushed a little when I read your comment! Thank you very much. :) ~ Riana ⁂ 13:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Socket F(1207)

Please undo your wrong "corrections" where I fixed "Socket F" to read "Socket F(1207)". AMD's offical branding for the socket is "Socket F(1207)". Please see http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_8826_14266,00.html or http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/sales_sheet_opteron_rev_f_v8.pdf or http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/Quad-Core_AMD_Opteron_processor_Fast_Facts.pdf where is says "Socket F(1207)" in several places - not "Socket F". Or look at offical AMD documents - you'll see titles such as "Thermal Design Guide for Socket F (1207) Processors". Dr unix (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. — Coren (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal Message

Hi!,

I need to PM or email you in private about your complaint.

Supercool Dude (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

{{NCI-cancer-dict}}

Your bot is still not registering the presence of the {{NCI-cancer-dict}} template. Please fix it! -- The Anome (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

SikhiWIki

Dear Coren

I am sorry to say that this is my second message regarding the above wiki. SikhiWiki is a Web-based, free content encyclopedia on Sikhi and that material at this site is copyleft and GFDL licence.

Please can you re-programme your bot to recognise Sikhiwiki as such and stop it marking articles with the template.

Many thanks, Hari Singh (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


BJ Orion

Hello Coren, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bj_orion The copyright text about the web page was removed. So would you please remove the text you left on the above link ? Thank you.

(talk)Bj orion (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Block of MM and SH

Gutsy call :) You may want to leave a note on the talk page of the RfAr's proposed decision to note your action. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

g'day coren

I saw your post about Mantan et al - and per the above, I also wondered if I could ask you to pop a note onto the relevant talk pages (user and RfAr maybe?) - really just echoing what you've already said at the noticeboard... it actually really helps in keeping the temperature down at a difficult time! - thanks for thinking about it, and best regards - Privatemusings (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I need to go to sleep, so for a few hours my note on AN will have to do— but I'll certainly keep an eye on both as soon as I return to conciousness. — Coren (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
sleep well! - (if you do take two sec.s to drop a talk note before dropping off, that would be cool, otherwise upon return will have to do!) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
For going through with it. DurovaCharge! 03:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I hereby present you with ...

File:BaodingQigong.jpg

... These Baoding Balls, renowned in China and wherever Chinese products are sold, in grateful recognition of your recent block. Baoding balls are a tool for injury recovery or as an exercise tool to improve manual dexterity and strength, according to the Wikipedia article I stole this pic from. I expect you'll be typing more for a little while after this block, and therefore these might come in handy. Although somehow I get the impression you have a pair already, they do get banged up with frequent use, so please consider these replacement brass balls. Noroton (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll go one better. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Please comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: Mantanmoreland. Jehochman Talk 13:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Shego

Back in January you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade Load as merge all articles. Since then the article Shego has been reverted to its former state despite there being pretty much no change from its pre merged form (see [3] for a direct comparison). I do not think any of the original issues have been addressed, the article presents no reliable independent secondary sources, it is full of original research and it does not meet the general notability guideline. On top of that the article Kim Possible is relatively short (13Kb) and the (proposed) notability guideline for fiction clearly says that articles on non-notable topics should be split of for size reasons. No effort was made by interested parties to develop the list into which the character information was merged (List of characters in Kim Possible) and I think that reverting the article as it was goes against consensus. I have in the past tried to discuss the issue with opposing users but I feel that we have come no closer to an agreement through it. As closer of the original AfD I was wondering what your thoughts on the matter were. Guest9999 (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

About the tag on Early languages, it's in that page from Wikipedia. Regards.--Damifb (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


CBRT (TV)

hi i just moved the article CBRT to CBRT (TV) and made the original CBRT as Disambiguation, i received an auto message from CorenSearchBot telling me that the article is duplicated (when i was working on it)and asked me to "drop a note" about it here.--MJKubba|talk|contributions 22:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Zedla RfA

Sorry for the delay, just want to say a quick thank you for your support and participation in my RfA which passed & closed earlier this week. – Zedla (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

MTP-II_MATER

may i ask to remove the deletion flag from the article MTP-II_MATER. this text is the description of a 10 year old eu-project, which was copied to various web pages of all partners and which is not copyright protected at all. thank you Hannes Grobe (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Mikiel Gonzi and Michael Gonzi

The similarity existed for a few seconds while i was moving articles of two relatives who share relatively the same name, so I removed the similarity tag. Tsum60 (talk) 10:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please undo it now

Please unblock him immediately. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the AN/I, I will do so with swiftness if he just agrees to not use the tools until this is cleared up. I will state so on his talk page as well. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I see someone else has already done it. Take my advice will you. Blocking an established user is a serious matter and should be done only as a last resort and with due care and consideration. Blocking hastily is itself an abuse of admin power. Note that being blocked does not stop an admin using the admin tools! Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No, but it makes it an immediately unsysopable offense. However, I strongly diagree that my block was over hasty - there should be no wiggling room or allowance for using the tools in a content dispute. At all. Ever, and with no exceptions. — Coren (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The are several admins on the noticeboard who disagree. You have to work with the community. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, admins who agree with the point Arthur was trying to make. I stand by my block as appropriate, backed up by policy and common sense, and will defend it if my involvement is put in question. I don't beleive that's required at this time; the community does indeed appear to have decided an unblock was appropriate and I will respect that as well. — Coren (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[T]here should be no wiggling room or allowance for using the tools in a content dispute—I've never known it to be a blockable offense, however! El_C 20:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I can think of no behavior more destructive to the encyclopedia. — Coren (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't be so bloody pompous! That block stays in his block log for ever. His error will always be with him. Your's you can lose. Think on that. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You are making three presumptions which are not borne out by facts. (a) His block message prejudges his behavior (I was careful to write it so that it would not) (b) His error *should* be ignored and (c) I have made one of comparable magnitude or severity. If it makes you feel any better, I will gladly archive this exchange and keep a handy link to it so that anyone who wishes to scrutinize my actions has no trouble finding it. — Coren (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
No need for that.I just want you take more care over your blocks. Note that I don't think his error should be ignored. I do however think it should be delt with by talking rather than blocking. There was no urgency here. You could have taken the matter to AN/I first then blocked if others agreed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was not involved in the dispute, so I was able to look at it from an outsider's eye. What I saw was (a) apparent abuse of deletion in a content dispute, (b) continuing dispute and (c) threats to continue using admin tools (blocking) in that dispute. Acting to stop further action immediately, and bringing the matter swiftly to AN/I seemed to me to be the most straightforward and obvious reaction. — Coren (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that tense tone is helpful, Theresa. Anyway, we all know my block log wins! El_C 20:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm just saying that we all see the occasional use of admin tools in content disputes (say, once or twice a month), and usually it just gets reversed fast, but does not result in a block. I'm only describing what the conventions strike me as. You're fairly new admin, right? El_C 20:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Fairly, yes. Just a couple of months. And I must disagree very strongly with any kind of slack given to admins in such cases, even if it's traditional to do so. We have no authority, and have been given a great deal of trust by the community. It is entirely possible that Arthur having "strayed" was eminently forgivable (we are all humans), but he should not have been allowed to stray further, as it were, before some sort of review had taken place. — Coren (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
You do know that blocking yourself is an abuse of admin tools! I've a good mind to punish you for having such a long block log ( Hmm what can I do?) To Coren, sorry about my tone earlier. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not good. :/ El_C 20:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I knew what I was about to do would rock emotions, and I was ready for the heat. The Right Thing (and let's agree that while you may not have agreed, my position is entirely reasonable shall we?) is rarely the Popular Thing. Anyways, I don't hold grudges, and even if I did it would take much more than an understandably curt tone to make me dream of revenge and vendettas.  :-) — Coren (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Fun fact: for instance, I'm pretty sure I once was in a dispute with El_C, but for the life of my I couldn't even tell you what it might have been about.  :-) — Coren (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh? It's not coming to me. I don't think you blocked me! Anyway, I've seen my shares of disasters strike when one's Good Thing turn out to be other's Bad Thing, or tang, even... That's why, I feel, that more-often-than-not, discussion is key. El_C 20:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Faces Of War Memorial

Hi, the text your bot found is the inscription on the Memorial. I sourced it via someone's personal site about their visit to the memorial and their copy of the inscription. So, let me know if it needs to be removed. I'm not sure to be honest.--Roswell native (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia_talk:AN#Hey.2C_let.27s_make_this_not_suck. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Murloc

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Murloc. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DegreeAbsolute (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks 4 removal

I've removed the {{administrator}} template from your userpage since you are not, in fact, an administrator. — Coren (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(rohit (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

Patient (album)

I used only a very generic piece of introductory text that was not copied from anywhere but obviously happened to line up somewhat with music reviews of the same album. I gather this should be fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelatemail (talk • contribs) 13:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand 2 arbitration case - adding parties

Hi Coren. I started the chain of events that led to you being added to the case (though as Daniel has now reverted that, I suspect you have been removed). I see from the evidence page that you are not happy with being added, and I apologise for that. Maybe you could say something at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Adding_parties_to_the_case? Please note that I did say there that "At the least, someone should notify them." - that was my main concern. Arthur Rubin seemed to be aware of the case - I was not sure if you were. In hindsight, as a party to the case and someone involved at the ANI thread, I should have just dropped a note on your talk page to point out the evidence being presented about your actions (by John254). Sorry about that. Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Good intent. At any rate, I was quite aware of the case (having recused myself from it), but I am not involved in the general mess except for the semi-occasional comment at AN and I had no intention to be.  :-) — Coren (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops. I missed that you had recused as a clerk (and were therefore perfectly aware of the case)! Must pay more attention in future. It does seem incontrovertible though, as John has pointed out, that Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Inappropriate administrative actions says: "Blocks may not be used to sanction administrators for the abuse of administrative privileges." I kind of vaguely knew that admins blocking admins over admin actions (rather than content disputes, even if you thought the admin action was part of a content dispute) was a general no-no (or at least not something ot be done unilaterally), but hadn't realised that very specific wording was in the policy. I do understand your response about blocking to prevent harm, and was wondering whether this needs clarification in the policy. The trouble is that judging whether blocking or not will cause more drama is difficult. I think you should have left Arthur Rubin another talk page message before taking the steps you did, but it was ultimately your call. Carcharoth (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'm not saying that one cannot reasonably dispute the appropriateness of my actions in this case (although I stand by my original block), but that this is unrelated to BC or the case. I would have acted exactly the same way if it had been any other editors involved. — Coren (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that whoever was involved, you should have discussed with them before blocking, and I've said this at the arbitration case. Is this the first time you discussed it with Arthur? Carcharoth (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

New article "Chaim Freedman"

I attempted to create a new article entitled "Chaim Freedman". I received a message that the content was similar to another page that I operate http://au.geocities.com/chaimjan2003/Chaim_Freedman.html

I have made a note on that page that it is the public domain and no copyright violations are applicable and that it may appear on Wikipedia.

Please advise that my submission to Wikipedia of my new article is now acceptable.

Chaim Freedman chaimjan@zahav.net.il March 17, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaimjan (talk • contribs) 17:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Jon Denning - this information was cut-n-pasted from his bio page and is not IN FACT copyrighted material from the site listed by the automatic search ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahveed323 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: 20th Special Operations Squadron

I've removed the tag automatically placed on the page by your bot because the information I included was from the public domain 20 SOS Fact Sheet [4] and AFHRA page [5]. It is likely that the cited page [6] got their info from the same place. Respectfully, Ndunruh (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Tree Frog Radio

is this where I am supposed to mention that I changed the text completely, after at first only copying and pasting? I am completely new to this wiki thing. I am a writer (really) and I am trying to describe part by part (article by article) a musical and social sub culture that has developed around my neck of the woods(Vancouver Island BC CANADA. if you could be so kind as to remove the heavy languaged "This article is being considered for deletion" notice. Thanks Ben Wobbles (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What Can Be Done at This Point

What Can Be Done at This Point doesn't include a copy of http://music.barnesandnoble.com/search/product.asp?EAN=733792585324. I didn't even know this website so I couldn't include informations from it in the article. Your bot shouldn't be so mistrustful ;). Mixplusik (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff International Pool

I am removing the tag because the site [7] has copied the Wikipedia article Cardiff International Sports Village, which I have edited nearly entirely. The above article I am going to expand considerable in the coming days, as it was previously only part of the main article (Cardiff International Sports Village). Seth Whales (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot

Gone broke :( Tiddly-Tom 14:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Pembroke Imperials

Please put this back. We the Board of Directors and administrators of the Imperials website gave full permission for the information to be used. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.56.201 (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Zilch Cliffs

Your bot's caught me again - the stuff I'm uploading is based on USGS gazetteers and is therefore acceptable under copyright. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 19:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If you've got a standard attribution template you use on the articles, I can teach CSBot about it and it'll leave you alone. — Coren (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Atari Interactive

Your bot placed the following on my talk page - This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Atari Interactive, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mulpituwa.com/srilanka/?title=Atari. 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.

wulpituwa is simply site that mirrors wikipedia information. Since Atari Interactive was created from the Atari page on Wikipedia that wulpituwa is mirroring, its confusing your bot. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
I, Coppertwig, hereby award you, Coren, this What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar for developing CorenANIBot to improve noticeboards watchabilitywise. Coppertwig (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Megan Louise Ireland

I have permission to publish the article from the original author on geocities. A-Kartoffel (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: CorenSearchBot

Your bot jumped on a duplication of part of the page Jack Starr at Jack Starr (blues guitarist). Unfortunately, the duplication was part of a split I was performing - I merely saved the new, split-off article about a minute before re-saving the original article, with the split-off text removed. Inside of that minute, your bot messaged me and tagged the new article. As this is probably how many (if not most) article splits are performed, your bot would do better to wait for some time before acting on duplicated text - maybe 30 minutes for the slow editors out there. Also - I would suggest a change to the edit summary your bot includes when tagging duplicated text: "Tagging possible copyvio of...". "Copyvio" is usually edit summary shorthand for "copyright violation", which a simple duplication of text from another Wikipedia article is not. — Swpbtalk.edits 17:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandbot implementation

Hi, I am in the process of re-writing Sandbot over the course of this month, and I would like your input on its implementation & design. I have drafted some notes on it at User:AllyUnion/Sandbot. Much appreciated! --AllyUnion (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the content on the website that the information was taken from.

Mmrohrer (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I own the rights to the info because I wrote it an posted it at the site that I linked to.

Bot taggin geo articles

Coren I'm a bit alarmed by the bot now taggin my new geo articles where I do a cut and paste and change the name and nearby settlements. Since when has using wikipedia content been copywrighted? Fro instance it tagged Zende as a copyright of Gbokopeteme ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 20:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And it's tagged a ton of my Antarctic articles, when all I've done is used public-domain text from an American-published gazetteer. I haven't posted any copyvio stuff in any of them. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 01:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're using a standard attribution template (like {{1911}}, for instance), I can teach CSBot about it so it leaves articles so tagged alone. — Coren (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see- it is a very good tool indeed but can sometimes be alittle too good!! if you know what I mean in terms of its radar. Strangely though it only tagged a few, of course I generate the articles by cut and paste and changing the relevant data as most people would. Its just I don't want to be getting my talk page with hundreds of messages as copywright thats all. It makes me feel naughty baby!!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 15:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can put you in the no-warn list since you're a known quantity. — Coren (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

page deletion

hi there, i have just made a page about the music producer baby j and it was deleted due to the content having been found on another website. i have full permission to use the information as i wrote it! the info i used was baby j's biography which has been placed on other websites. please can i have the page restored or advice on what to do? thanks.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Babyj333 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I used material from the webpage www.vci.ie as an officer of the organisation --Treidlia (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Little Mermaid: Songs from the Sea

Another album that your bot warned me about, track listings are gonna be the same. --blm07 02:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Louis de Soissons

This article, which is needed is in the process of being written. It was less than 3 minutes old when your bot wrote to me. I am anonymising the material from different sources. Chasnor15 (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Klaven

Hi Coren,

I was given permission by Andrew to use the contents of his website, which he maintains, for an article. I can put you in touch with him if needed or can forward you the message he sent me.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timsteeleworks (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Rt. Revd. Michael Colclough

Hi Coren,

This page resembles the website which relates to as both contain biographical information. I have edited the website and paraphrased into my own words; however, the mentioning of the same places etc. will likely cause the bot to continue to see the Wikipage and the website as similar.Textbook (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement#ScienceApologist

Did you review the discussion at WP:AE? If not, then I ask you to reconsider as there is more history here than it may appear. Ronnotel (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I did. I saw nothing especially compelling there— SA has been quite a bit - rough around the edges - as he often is, but the very presence of an apology is a welcome change which I am loathe to celebrate with a punitive block. I'm going to be keeping an eye on him, and I've already suggested he refactor what his talk page projects. Honey vs. Vinegar and all that. — Coren (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
GRBerry is doing a remarkable job at WP:AE and is extraordinarily reasonable. However you didn't even give him an opportunity to respond at WP:AN before overturning him. Bad show. Ronnotel (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he is. My act is not a reflection upon his judgment, and I'll go make sure he doesn't get that mistaken impression forthwith. — Coren (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Coren, I disagree with your overturning this block - but I'm not going to wheel war over it. There is a pattern here, which is that as soon as he gets blocked a group of editors starts shopping for an admin to modify or overturn the block. His block of 20 January was shortened, I shortened my block of 14 February, his block of 23 February was shortened, and now you've shortened this one without discussing it with me first and apparently without reading the comments I had made on his talk page before he refactored it. He also did not apologize so that basis for unblocking is not supported by the facts, if you read the supposed apology it is quite clearly a non-apology apology. While it is intended to sooth feelings - which is good - it also does not acknowledgize wrongdoing If you can get him down off the Reichstag he has now climbed onto, great. Anything I do at this point would clearly inflame matters more. GRBerry 19:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Which is what I am desperately trying to avoid, seeing how he's already got his spiderman suit on.  :-) Let's keep this on AN, to avoid leaving droppings all over the place making it impossible for anyone else to follow the discussion. — Coren (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Autoblocks

If the tool is down, go here, fulltext search in your browser for the effected user. AoI2 (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

SA

I am merely pointing out the implications of his decision and am neither being aggressive or confrontational (although, ironically, that is exactly how he has been to me).

He has shown scant regard for discussing things with other people and has publicly stated his refusal to ignore WP:CONSENSUS - somehow I think this is beyond simply getting him to calm down, although I encourage everyone to take what efforts they can to help editors to work better with the community and wish you luck. (Emperor (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

It is almost always worth the effort, just so ling as you can get him to play by even the most basic rules. I have stated my piece and in an effort to have a more drama-free Wikipedia experience I will leave you to your efforts. (Emperor (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

Civility in arbitration case

Hello.

I will ask you to remain civil at all times, and to constrain your language to avoid invective and personal attacks. In particular [8] is completely unacceptable even in a heated debate such as can be found on the evidence and workshop pages of an arbitration case.

Further attacks of that nature, as well as inflammatory or offensive language, will not be tolerated and will lead to you being banned from the arbitration case pages or blocked.

— Coren (talk) for the Arbitration Committee 23:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, since the conversations of the Arbcom are secret, I have no idea what you are refering to.
Who told you too email me? Then I can explain my edits.
In addition, I have no what is uncivil?
Oh, repeating JzG "fuck off" "cunt" etc. is uncivil. Ironic, don't you think? I wonder how many veteran editors added warning messages like yours to JzG talk page when he was telling other editors to fuck off. JzG regularly uses "inflammatory or offensive language". Then I quote his "inflammatory or offensive language" and I get the warning message. Trav (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I am a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, and part of our duties is to ensure that the level of debate on the case page remains at least somewhat civil and organized. While Anthony is the clerk of record for that specific case, all of us collaborate to maintain a minimal level of decorum on the pages. Accordingly, I have redacted the most offensive of your latest comments and reminded you that your behavior could lead to measures to prevent further disruption of the case. I have provided a link to the comment in question in my warning (which you copied above) which was, as far as I can tell, quite yours. — Coren (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I should also point out that JzG has not used such language on the arbitration case pages. He may or may not have used such language elsewhere, but that does not excuse your use of it in the workshop. — Coren (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I know you are just doing your job trying to avoid fighting.
I guess I can just go back to "passive aggressive", practiced by veteran wikipedians, instead of my current "aggressive":
Instead of writing "lying" I will say "not telling the truth", instead of writing "hypocrisy" I will say "contradictory".
You get the general idea. Thanks for keeping things civil.
Actually being more passive aggressive makes my points more convincing. So thank you for deleting those aggressive sections.
RE: I should also point out that JzG has not used such language on the arbitration case pages. He may or may not have used such language elsewhere, but that does not excuse your use of it in the workshop.
"Will you ban me if I quote the "inflammatory or offensive language" of JzG?" I am not calling other people "inflammatory or offensive language", I am simply quoting JzG. I am particularly making a point about his "contradictory" stance with Ireneshusband, who uses none of the "inflammatory or offensive language" and has been very civil, and yet is being accused of incivility.
If you could give me another warning if I start drifting from "passive aggressive" back into "aggressive" I would appreciate it. I will happily delete anything you or anyone else finds the least bit offensive.
Best wishes, I would never want your job, which makes me respect what you do even more, because your job is vital to wikipedia. Trav (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend that you stick to citing diffs where you feel objectionable language lie than quote it yourself, especially out of context. You might want to refactor your evidence sections accordingly, incidentally. — Coren (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If you are offended by those words, I am sorry, but they are not my words, I didn't say them. As we know, quoting editors words in arbcoms is very common. I am trying to show bad incivility in an arbcom.
Can't we both agree that the statement:
"JzG has told several editors to fuck off."
Is accurate? Trav (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not demand that you do so, I recommended that you do so. It is, as a rule, mostly your rhetorical choice but you should be aware that you are likely weakening your position by so doing. — Coren (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the ciefl page needs to be changed to eflu. I tried doing it but failed. As i am the authoor of the article i would like to mention that the name of ciefl has been changhed to eflu. kindly make the changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesciefl (talk • contribs) 08:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Empty net goal

I think this is a mirror of Wikipedia, but I'm not sure. All I did was redirect the page from Empty Netter. Was the text there a copyright violation? Schmloof (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Academy for the Arts

The Chicago Academy of the arts is the only non-profit, college preparatory high school in Illinois. I listed Adam Rifkin, Lara Flynn Boyle and several others as distinguished alumni. The wording will in some ways resemble the wording of the schools website. I don't believe in putting fluff or spurious statements in a simple description of a school. This is not literary work. I have changed the wording but I refuse to significantly change the facts. That would be dishonest both academically and ethically.Richard Dates (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mike Garson Album - Homage to my Heroes

The only online reference to this album with tracklisting is from thecdbaby.com website- although the tracklisting was hand typed by myself, the bot incorrectly states iam copy and pasting content. Please help to resolve. Garsonofficial (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Macintosh News Network

Wow your bot is fast. I had just saved the first draft, very much a stub article about the website. I sourced much of the information from the sites own about page so I am not surprised it is similar. But it is not a direct copy and is so brief as to be difficult to re-word in another way. I have referenced the source and think that it does not violate copyright. If you still agree with your bots finding, let me know and I will work with you to reword. regards --Brian R Hunter (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Trémilly

Hi, your bot is right, Trémilly, Nully and Nully-Trémilly are currently very similar; they are stubs now, but they soon will be developped. — M-le-mot-dit (T) 19:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

SS Deutschland

SS Deutschland appears to be a copy of [9] because that page is a mirror site of the original WP page of Deutschland (disambiguation), from whence the text of SS Deutschland originated — Bellhalla (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

false positive at United Cerebral Palsy

Your bot noticed that United Cerebral Palsy had identical text to http://www.county.hekko.pl/?title=United_Cerebral_Palsy In fact, the hekko.pl page was a copy of the Wikipedia article, not the other way around. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Creating Goat Island, Auckland and Goat Island, Otago generated a bot warning. It was because the souces of copyright violation suggested by the bot was actually a mirror of the WP article. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 03:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Chadwell - Chadwell (Leicestershire)

Your bot correctly identified a duplicate article. This was part way through some tidying. I have now removed the tag from Chadwell (Leicestershire). You may wish to check that all is OK. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ye Olde Times

The copyrighted text from Ye Olde Times was only there temporarily and has since been removed and a link placed in the references. Thanks Eltrozo (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Software package (programming)

This 'bot [strangely] linked a computer programming web page to an advertisement for a Bible study CD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon lynx (talk • contribs) 12:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian interpreter

Hi,

I've seen your message in the Hungarian Wikipedia.

I'd be glad to help.

-- nyenyec ☎ 13:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer to help. Would you please introduce yourself to User:TransylvanianKarl and offer to help? I am about to open the arbitration case within the next hour and we wouldn't want language difficulties to place him in a difficult position. — Coren (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ComputerGuy890100&curid=16202411&diff=201671743&oldid=201405170

The above diff was a "copyvio" from a Wikipedia mirror. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

re Negative priming page

I was trying to set up a link from the 'Schizotypy' page to the already-existing 'Negative priming' page, but could not work out why the link stayed red. Perhaps you can help. I have no desire to duplicate the negative page!Ranger2006 (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hilda Charlton

I was given the text and permission to use it from a representative of the publisher directly; however, to avoid an exact match of the text, I am in the process of rewriting the article somewhat to avoid another collision. I have removed the tag.--Cminard (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Lethte, not Lethe

Hi Coren. I got a message from you about being a party to an ArbCom case. I didn't recognize any of the other names listed, and I also didn't see my own name in the ArbCom listing, so I was pretty confused as to why I was there.

So then I looked through your history a bit and found the original post to WP:ANI by User:Harry59b / User:Harry59. I saw there a description by Harry that User:Lethe (that's me) was blocked User:Archtransit. It was then determined that Lethe was a sockpuppet of Archtransit. Archtransit was desysopped for it. This part was redacted from your submission, which is why I didn't see it. But this is getting stranger. I have never heard of Archtransit, nor was I ever blocked by him, nor by anyone else. I am, in fact, an admin myself, though I'm mostly inactive on Wikipedia these days.

So I went to Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship and found Archtransit's RfC, and all was made clear. It was User:Lethte whom Archtransit blocked and who was ruled a sock of Archtransit. I am User:Lethe. Harry must have made a mistake in typing the name. -lethe talk + 21:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Bhah. Whoh cares aboutu a fwew extrta lettrers?  :-) Will fix accordingly. — Coren (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. I guess it doesn't even matter. Lethte's permabanned, so he's not gonna take part. And anyway, his involvement was redacted from the submission to ArbCom. -lethe talk + 21:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarification.

Picked the content off the article on wikipedia, called Bollarum and not from the website you mentioned. I'm gonna expand it by researching. Randhirreddy 23:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A.C. Alles article

All the necessary notable changes done to the contents referred from [10] and removed the automated tag from CorenSearchBot.Thanks, --Vimukthi (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Commercial scrape of en:WP

Take a look at this when you have a moment. Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coren/Archives/2008/March&oldid=1147380326"