User talk:Coren/Archives/2009/September
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Coren. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Salut Coren. J'espère que tout va bien et tu va profiter des belles journées ensoleillées ici à Montréal cette fin de semaine. Nous avons rencontré un petit problème de traduction chez Marc Lépine et nous avons besoin d'un francophone de souche pour nous aider. Si tu as le temps ...--Slp1 (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Re:Elke Felten
Felten is a legitimate competitor and the Sports-reference.com file proves this. Your bot is getting hypersensitive again! Chris (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I will go back and edit it to remove some of the exact phrases that I copied from the website. I wanted it to be as accurate as possible, but Ill make the changes and use slightly different wording. Thanks for the BOT - thats a great feature and will really ensure Wikipedia stays in compliance with copyright laws. Happy Labor Day - mt91403. Mt91403 (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Search bot
Your search bot does not seem to take note of possible mirrors of content on Wikipedia. This is a direct copy of Gekisou Sentai Carranger and when someone decided to split off part of the article into a new one, the bot tagged it as a copyvio.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Fort Gaston
- CorenSearchBot is in error: Some of the information comes from the book cited on the http://www.militarymuseum.org/FtGaston.html webpage cited as it covers the period but it is also combined with other details from other sources and military records of the units (noted in references) that served the Fort the article so as to show the events and units serving at Fort Gaston is writen about.Asiaticus (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
A message to the Arbitration Committee
This message is being sent to all non-recused arbitrators.
I have sent a message to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment page, that mentions what I feel that I need to say to ArbCom before the ban takes effect.
The message is here.
Thank you. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Stuart Boam
Hello. I just got a warning from CorenSearchBot for the statistics on the Stuart Boam page that I just created. Apparently, the stats in the template (taken from this book) were identical to the stats on this page which I have used as a source in the past, but ironically did not use this time. --Badmotorfinger (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Article Storeton community Radio
The CorenSearchBot refers to a website http://mrconcept.tripod.com/pf-scr.html
This is a mirror site owned by myself which is now obsolete.
(Birkonian (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)).
Target Counselling Services
Hi Coren,
Target Counselling Services is not a business of an individual for revenue.
It helps student with talents and have no financial support etc. There are many more achievements they have made in recent years.
I am acting on behalf of Amaresh Shanker to write an article on wiki to help financially uncapable talents to know and benefit from it. (As i was one of them students, with the help of Target Counselling Services Aid i gota degree and working for one Corporation in UK.)
And the page on linkedin is the page of founder of Target Counselling Services : - Mr amaresh shanker. (I am following all the copyyright laws in this article.) http://www.linkedin.com/pub/shanker-amaresh/9/719/6b7
I was still editing the article when it was deleted. I am writing it again with proper detailed information and projects. (will its be fine to use hangon?)
I am new to wiki article writing techniques. (please advice), which is the most appropriate way to go about it.
Regards Jagjot Singh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagjot (talk • contribs) 08:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Harvey Prize
Is it correct, when I list only the year and the names of the winners with one sentence about the awarding reasons ??Jarszick (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I have done new formulations and citations because the copyright. Is the site now correct ?? Jarszick (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Merci!!!
Thanks for the help on the bid!!! --Mixwell!Talk 21:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Mcnamara fallacy
hiya a bot has left a message saying the mcnamara fallacy article i did has lifted a quote from a site..which is incorrect i've just cited the proper text? --Zak (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
About Lewis Collins
I used http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/scotland/collins1.php to establish a stub. I did not copy any of their text; however, given the limits on vocabulary concerning flying aces, I may have tripped your bot's alarm by duplicating some words. There is NO copyright violation. I am using facts from the site, that's all.
Georgejdorner (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this is the second false positive I've rung up on your bot. This time it was for John Victor Gascoyne, even as I was writing it. I'm going to knock off noodling on these stubs, and spare your bot the false alarms.
Georgejdorner (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Aha! The bots alarm is caused by the citations for military decorations, which I am copying. Citations concerning military decorations are public domain. I don't need to post them though. Not in a stub.
Georgejdorner (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
billgarcia
I asked TonyTheTiger about the recent deletion. The bot that searched and found billgarcia.webs.com is the same copy that originally appeared in Wikipedia prior to deletion. TonyTheTiger suggested that I resubmit the article for review complete with reference tags. I have done so. Please allow this article to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billus99 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
False alert due to WP mirror
This alert happened when I was doing an article split-out. The "source" is a WP mirror or cut-and-paste of the article I was splitting out from. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Another False alert due to WP mirror
This alert happened when I was doing an article split-out. The "source" is a WP mirror or cut-and-paste of the article I was splitting out from. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Phosphorus oxoacids
I wrote the article "Phosphorus oxoacids" for WikiDoc and included in that article the following, "Initial content for this page in some instances came from Wikipedia. In addition at the bottom of the page WikiDoc includes "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License."
So the article content is in the Public Domain in the manner of the Share-Alike License.
I hope this clarifies the matter. Any questions, please let me know. I will remove any copyright vio tags if I see them. Please let me know if there is something going on I do not know about. Marshallsumter (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The United Cancer Foundation page has been updated to fix the problem you listed. Thank you Scottdkaplan (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Bot exclusion list
If the SearchBot has an exclusion list of known free sites, please add dKosopedia which is licensed under the GNU. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- It does, but that site's license is a little confusing. It has a CC-BY-SA logo, but states "Content is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." explicitly. Do you know for a fact which applies? — Coren (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
No idea, sorry. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that a GFDL source isn't compatible with Wikipedia anymore, whereas a CC-BY-SA source is. I'll email them and ask. — Coren (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Lenny Dee
I was tying to write an article honouring Lenny Dee as a great American Musician But it just disappeared. Any suggestions about how I could restart my project? GghaGgha (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The title of the article is Debian. If you believe the title of the article is incorrect, please work to get it moved. If you look at the Debian website, you will see that the OS is simply named "Debian" - they also use GNU/Linux to describe the type of OS that Debian is, but the name of the OS is simply "Debian", just as "Ubuntu" is the full name for that distro. Yworo (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The bot says that my text is a direct copy of another webpage. This is not the case, the only similarity between my work and the webpage is the fighter results (which are not completely identical). I will remove the tag. Thanks.
Jsmith006 (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Topic banned with no notification
While I realize that Wikipedia has no due process, I see you voting to temporarily topic ban me here yet I have received no notification of even being part of any administrative action. Please explain. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 02:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- That is why there is a note requesting that a clerk makes sure you are notified. Note that injunctions take effect no less than a day after they pass, and are lifted automatically at the end of the case— this is a measure to defuse the situation and prevent escalation and not a sanction. — Coren (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
There are exceptions to almost everything....
When I complain of off wiki conversations, and "Star Chambers," and things of that nature, I feel I have to qualify that I do not mean WP Foundation issues, and the day to day operations of the servers, things like that. I'm talking about clique-ishness and regional predjudices, and proclivity towards slanting policy/articles/Request for Whatever's by mailing lists and private channels.
It happens. There is little we can do about it... Not without alienating the "older, more established" editors, who in most cases feel they have some kind of vested interest in the thing. Like a business. The only individual who I could point to who qualifies- gets shite flung his direction so often, I wonder why he keeps it going at all. He must really love the whole idea. What-a-guy! Anyways, just felt I should qualify my comments at a now closed thread of discussion. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Secret ballot process
Following on from our exchange at RFC: ArbCom secret ballot, I have I have prepared a proposal to provide measures to assure voters against the possibility of fraud when using a secret ballot for Wikipedia elections:
I'd welcome your input. The proposal would involve changes to Special:SecurePoll, if agreed to - but nothing very extensive. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- I've barely had time to skim, but much of what I see there seems sane enough. I'm under the impression that SecurePoll already implements mechanisms similar to that which you propose, though. Have you matched your proposal to existing code? — Coren (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- It implements much of it already. I wanted to gather feedback from other users first before I went to Tim Starling. The extra bits are not a lot more extra code. I'd do them myself, if necessary (at least to demo). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Something that'd likely help, then, is annotation of what changes are needed. It helps circumscribe what work is needed and makes for a better request. — Coren (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea. It might be at least another week or so before I'll get the chance, but it would sure help. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Note
Your flagrant disregard for our most basic values and core policies is disheartening. Encouraging packs of editors to harass, stalk and intimidate those they disagree with is very damaging to Wikipedia. You’ve turned your back on assuming good faith and encouraging collegial discussion to resolve disputes. Your actions have done a lot to encourage incivility and you’ve lent support to censorship and thuggish mob behavior. I hold you personally responsible for your role in condoning these grotesque and abusive actions. I hold out hope that in the future you will do a better job standing up for Wikipedia’s integrity and editors that are targeted for abuse. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
- What, exactly, are you referring to? — Coren (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Your arbitration statements and decisions that have empowered a group of editors to relentlessly stalk and harass those they disagree with. I have not edited any content about Obama. I have abided by every restriction imposed on me. If there is an article subject that an admin doesn't think I should edit all they have to do is let me know.
- The lies, distortions and smears against me and my good faith editing are despicable. You've played a significant part in assisting and agreeing with those actions. I'm letting you know that you're clearly in the wrong.
- I have abided by every restriction imposed on me. And there is no diff that shows otherwise. Obama is mentioned ONCE 3/4 of the way into the ACORN article, and I haven't gone anywhere near that content. I was the one who initatied the discussion on the non-partisan issue many months ago, so it was reasonable I commented on it. I didn't interact with anyone I wasn't supposed to. Anyone who says different is a liar.
- I'm not even allowed to respond to those stalking me because of the restrictions that I requested because of their relentless harassment and pursuit of me to get me blocked and banned, yet they're allowed to continue stirring up these problems. What am I supposed to do if I'm not allowed to respond? Quit playing along with this connecting the dots bullshit with endless stretching of my restrictions to any article and discussion that can in any way be inferred somehow to relate in some way possible to Obama.
- This is complete bullshit. You and the other Arbs have aided in these disruptive and time consuming fishing expeditions against me by those to trying to make me look bad and to get me blocked and banned. It's sickening and shameful.
- The president of the United States has connections to OODLES of articles. There are hardly any articles on politics, the environment, health care, or other major issues in the U.S. that DON'T have some connection to the president. There was no dispute or disruption until a report was filed against me and you've played along with the craziness. There was never a request that I avoid that article and numerous editors have noted how tenuous the connection is. Even so, if there's an issue, all you or any other admin has to is to drop me a note and I'm happy to comply until it's sorted out through discussion. That's how courteous and collegial editing works. Not from on high by wiki police and kids playing model UN without making the slightest effort to actually grasp what's going on or to show respect for long term good faith editors. Stop encouraging bullies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: New Randolph Clarke page
Thanks for catching my mistake, Coren. I have paraphrased the material from Clarke's home page and put quotation marks on one important sentence. I hope that is acceptable. Cmsreview (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Sharon Louden
Hello, I have now properly cited where I received the information on Sharon Louden's page(I had a difficult time figuring out how to do it). Also, this information is common knowledge of her exhibition history so I don't know that it is copyright infringement. An offending direct copy from her website has been removed and the other information cited. I hope this is enough but please contact me if it is not. Thanks, Artstars
Artstars (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, its from Gitanjali and can be found on numerouts web pages on the internet (using google). It was pubished in 1910 and since then the copyright has ended.
So please remove the warning.
--Sandyiit (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
St. Lawrence Boom and Lumber Company
Hello, I corrected the bot on this page. It should be fine now, but I am not sure how to correct the citations mark.--Karstwater.Karstwater (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Quenby Hall Blue Stilton
I have been given express permission to reproduce the official history by The Quenby Hall Estate owners and they have verified and checked the entry is correct, The Estate owners are happy to donate the material to Wikipedia i will obtain the email permission and forward it to commons shortly --Designgeist (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Virse De Waris Nu
i am allowed to do so as i am the creator of article on sikhiwiki and wiki too. i have all previleges for text, images etc. (Hpt lucky (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC))
Re this bot edit. Data itself is not copyrighted. I removed the template. --Bensin (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Possible sockpuppet
Is someone going to address this issue anytime soon? Offliner (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I expect so, one way or the other, though that is part of a long list of data points to examine during the case. Do you see current disruption that needs to be addressed urgently? — Coren (talk) 04:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, not really. It can wait. But if it really is a sockpuppet, then it's actions need to be looked at during the case as well. Offliner (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Proposed principles
Thank you for the guiding principles, they are certainly thought-provoking. Can you add one on the Committee attitude towards privacy of correspondence (reading private emails) and such? This is not fully addressed by 10) "Exclusion of evidence". Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced it's relevant at all in the first place; my understanding of that legal principle (even if it applied to ArbCom) make it relevant strictly to mail that is in transit. (In other words, it would apply to interception of the mail, not of seizing it before it was sent or after it was received.) — Coren (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think Radek covered this in his evidence here. Whether this does or doesn't apply to Wikipedia is an interesting precedent to make. I may not like it, but if it doesn't apply, saying so clearly will help the project (by giving you something you can point to in the future rulings). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
On a more pleasant subject, I'd appreciate Committee's (or yours) advice how to balance one's desire to chat about Wikipedia with friends and colleagues in private with not violating site's policies. PS. I am quite fond of transparency, but you must admit there are things that one may want to say in private and at the same time not violate any wiki policy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I hope you'll forgive me for not going into that topic with you at this time. Under different circumstances, this might have been a productive discussion but given that I'm sitting on the committee that is to rule on that topic (and, indeed, that I will be the one writing most of the decision) I need to keep an arm's length from the subject.
I very much want to make sure, at least, that the decision itself will give you (and everyone) as good guidance on the subject as possible, though — that's my primary objective and part of the reason why I posted the first proposed principles early. — Coren (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate your sentiments here. I've already proposed in the workshop one way to salvage something out of this mess. Are such initiatives welcomed by the Committee? We are currently discussing how to reform our group to make it more transparent in the future and your principles will help - but I am sure there are blind spots we have that we cannot see without outside help. If the community thinks we have veered of course, we are willing to steer back towards it. In the end, we want to help the project. I hope my wiki record proves that I mean what I say here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Of course; contrary to what some may believe, the members of the committee actually actively dislike the fact that disputes end up in front of us. :-) Attempts to solve problems are always welcome. — Coren (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- Inspired by our conversation, here's my idea: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Workshop#Proposal_by_Piotrus_-_public_discussion_forum_for_EE_topics. If we can get this to work, this should vastly contribute to easing the problem we are facing (I'd hope). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- I am wondering if you think the above proposal is a good idea? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Inspired by our conversation, here's my idea: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Workshop#Proposal_by_Piotrus_-_public_discussion_forum_for_EE_topics. If we can get this to work, this should vastly contribute to easing the problem we are facing (I'd hope). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Of course; contrary to what some may believe, the members of the committee actually actively dislike the fact that disputes end up in front of us. :-) Attempts to solve problems are always welcome. — Coren (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
- I appreciate your sentiments here. I've already proposed in the workshop one way to salvage something out of this mess. Are such initiatives welcomed by the Committee? We are currently discussing how to reform our group to make it more transparent in the future and your principles will help - but I am sure there are blind spots we have that we cannot see without outside help. If the community thinks we have veered of course, we are willing to steer back towards it. In the end, we want to help the project. I hope my wiki record proves that I mean what I say here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Your bot is biting me
Hi, could you tell your bot to stop giving me warning messages for the fungal taxon stubs I'm making? I think we went through this once before... thanks. Sasata (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Rebecca Adamson
Hi Coren. I got a CorenSearchBot notice and tag on Rebecca Adamson. The primary source is Dartmouth News, not the wiki mentioned in your tag. Whew are you fast. Hope that helps. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Your bot
I just created Soap and Detergent Association. Your bot did identify the page I used as my source, but I didn't copy any copyrighted material. Adam_sk (talk) 04:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Maria L. de Hernández
Hi again. This time you located the correct source but I am quite sure that I have rewritten it enough that it isn't a copyright violation. The article tag's been removed. -SusanLesch (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Your bot tagged Diablo II Soundtrack as a possible copyvio, which makes sense statistically, as there's really not enough content in the article yet for a significant divergence (most of the article is a track listing, guaranteed to be the same). So just letting you know that your bot found a source I hadn't used, but I added to the article anyway. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Your bot tagged LCH.Clearnet. This is in the making of a new article about a company in London, seperate from Clearing house (finance). I have used some of the contents to get the article started. Darkieboy236 (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Responding in Coren's absence: Note that you still have to attribute content which you borrowed from contributors to a different article. This is best done by placing the {{Copied}} template on both source and target articles' talk pages and noting where it came from in an edit summary on the target article - that way, the attribution history will be preserved.
- I took the liberty to complete all these steps on your behalf.
- Happy editing, MLauba (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Wesley Charitable Foundation
Not a copyright violation, please see the discussion page for link to license information from original site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmatlock (talk • contribs) 13:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)