User talk:Coren/Archives/2010/April

Checkuser block

I wonder what took so long? This user was back the day after the last CU block. Will the account be tagged with the puppetmaster name? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly useful or necessary to. Certainly, that person knows why the account was blocked and there isn't anything particularly enlightening about that sock that makes it worth tagging. — Coren ^(talk) 13:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about how we deal with this from here forward, as it will be ongoing ... but I'm relieved to see that arbcom didn't miss this one, since everyone saw it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it's not useful or necessary to properly tag this sock. We're trying to build a pattern of behavior here that will help us identify future socks, and we have every indication that there will be future socks. Even if this particular sock didn't do anything egregious, it needs to be tagged and cataloged. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it being done, I just didn't see much point. Feel free. — Coren ^(talk) 16:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverts for Sexual Orientation article

I reverted your reversions. The reason is that you seem not to have understood what I had done or why, but just went in with the delete key. You can work with me on this article or start an edit war. That's up to you. I have a doctorate in biology, I've been publishing about human sexuality in the scholarly print literature since the 1980s, and I've been on the editorial board of several scholarly print journals of human sexuality. I'm a expert. I'm not asking you to "be nice." I'm telling you that if you continue to delete stuff you don't understand, then I simply will walk away, because I simply won't argue with you about anything. Then the article will remain a mess. And I mean mess. It's up to you, because I won't waste any more time on this. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Somebody just reverted my work. I don't have time for this kind of childishness. Sayonara. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Autofellatio protection

HI:

I see you protected the Autofellatio article. I am not sure why. You suggest that there was an edit war when I don't see any evidence of that. A self-image (a be was contributed by an editor, and that image was replaced by another image from the commons (a better image). Another third editor had concerns about copyright for that image which are being addressed on his talk page. The first editor agrees (also through discussion on the talk page) that an alternative image may be better, and has not reverted. Seems like everything is working just fine to me.

I appreciate the help, as controversy on images seems to frequently occur on sexology and sexuality articles and page protection is often necessary. I don't think there is any reason for page protection on this article though -- at least not at this time. As soon as page protection is removed, and we resolve whether the replacement image has copyright issues or not, we will change the image.

Regards, Atom (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I spoke too soon. There is still controversy regarding the image that needs to be worked out. I'm still not sure why the page needs to be protected when we have been talking about it from the beginning, however, leave the protection on as long as you think it is necessary. Atom (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, half a dozen image changes in a day certainly screams "dispute". I'm pretty sure three days to work it out isn't going to be too much (the protection is set to expire then). — Coren ^(talk) 12:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well on the 31st, I changed the image to remove the vanity image[1] and then Fred the Oyster reverted that [2] and then he and I started talking further, and then you protected the article. That is what I based my comments on. It seemed a classic case of "be bold, revert, discuss".

I see looking back a day further, to the 30th that the article had lots of activity, the image changed flip-flopped times when a user (Jazzz47) tried to take out the image altogether and replace with a drawing. [3], [4] , [5]. I am supposing that is what you may be referring to.

Three days ought to be fine, thanks. Atom (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mabinogion (Album)

I bot identified a duplication - this was only because I began to edit using another page layout as a template - I have improved the article and removed the duplication message - thanks for the guidance Si —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cousinss (talk • contribs) 22:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Block on 83.145.72.0

Did you mean to block the /24? Tim Song (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I did. Fix't. The shame! It burns! — Coren ^(talk) 00:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Mabinogion (album) and chain to break

Hi there

the bot identified that an article I had added was similar to chain to break, another one of the articles tht I had added. This is because I used the chain to break artcle as a template to ensure I did not forget wiki editing symbols and kept the standard of the article as high as possible. I have edited and change the Mabinogion (album) article now, and it bares no text resembelence to chain to break.

Thank you

Si —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cousinss (talk • contribs) 00:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Scibaby

In your recent Scibaby report at WP:SPI you said that no sleepers were found. It might be best to refrain from saying things like that. He occasionally tries new tactics, and disclosing that nothing was found could confirm to him that a new tactic appears to be working. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Then again, not saying anything would have said essentially the same thing since it was especially a sleeper flush. *shrug* — Coren ^(talk) 02:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yah, whatev. He's like a fly that keeps buzzing and you can never quite manage to swat. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

James Dupre

I have tried to set up this article tonight with permission from the artist to use the bio info from his website, but wikipedia keeps blocking me. As I stated, I have full permission to use this information and need to know what to do to ok it with you. -Tbrow46 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbrow46 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Tbrow46 (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read the guide to requesting and formalizing permission to use copyrighted works on Wikipedia. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. — Coren ^(talk) 12:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting on some form of contact from Wikipedia concerning my email sent to confirm and grant permission to use information from the artist's website. I also have noticed the picture was removed, even though when I uploaded it I confirmed my copyright to it. Please respond so that I can move forward. Tbrow46 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbrow46 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It may take a couple of days for a permission email to be processed, the Wikipedia email response team receives a large number of email every day and it takes a great deal of effort to go through them all. — Coren ^(talk) 14:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Cable & Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia

thanks for checking and please be reassured, that there is no copyright violation (Mentalmoses (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Set (C++)

Thanks for the info. While the text in the article was in part based on a section of the C++ user guide, it has now been completely replaced with original content. vIkSiT (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Silence Club

I am full copyrighted owner of all media, art and web domains related with www.thesilenceclub.com and give full permission for wikipedia to access all of the silence clubs information from www.thesilenceclub.com for public domain information purposes on wikipedia.

Aaron L Novak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesilenceclub (talk • contribs) 11:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Replied at user talk. Franamax (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Commerce and Economic Development Bureau

This article is a stub and it contains an image which the author has indicated it is open to free use e.g. File: Hong Kong SAR Regional Emblem.svg

The bot must have been a bit aggressive and its only a stub article. All info is properly referenced. Takamaxa (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of article Inge Lynn Collins Bongo

I started the article Inge Lynn Collins Bongo, which I am also translating into French. The article was completely neutral and thus did not intend "to disparage or threaten its subject or someone else." To claim otherwise is simply not true. You also say that my sources "sucked," a characterization I vehemently reject as the references I provided were either court documents or a US Senate Report. What's more, Inge Lynn Collins Bongo is the former wife of an African president and thus deserves a page of her own. Is the implication here that the lives of African prominent people and their families have no place in Wikipedia? I'd urge you to consider restoring that page or to give me the courtesy of an arbitration by a third party. Otherwise, this could be construed as a dictatorial move intent on infringing upon free speech! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aengw (talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no free speech on Wikipedia. All articles here need to follow our content policies, in particular the policy on biographies of living persons which is especially important. Feel free to write an actual biography, paying attention to not place undue emphasis on specific incidents in a manner disproportionate to the relative importance of those incidents during that person's life. Also, please make certain that her notability is properly demonstrated with good reliable sources. In particular, please note that coverage of some events where that person is involved do not suffice to make that person notable on their own. Reliable coverage about the person herself is necessary for this. — Coren ^(talk) 00:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of article Inge Lynn Collins Bongo

I properly followed the content policies regarding biographies of living persons. The notability, in the case of Inge Lynn Collins Bongo, was clearly demonstrated in the article that was carefully sourced. Media reports and the U.S. Senate Report clearly state that she “is the wife of Ali Bongo, the current president of Gabon.” The Wikipedia page on Omar Bongo specifically mentions her. This in itself warrants cross-referencing. “Specific incidents” that you talk about are incidentally what define and frame the biography of Inge Lynn Collins Bongo: her application for welfare while she was receiving millions of dollars in overseas wire transfers as mentioned in the Senate Report, for instance. And, by the way, the Senate Report also mentions her lawsuit against Sean Combs, which, according to you, fall into “specific incidents” not worth mentioning. Your argument simply doesn’t hold water. Can one write a biography of Heidi Fleiss without mentioning that she “is a famous former American madam”? Please, restore the page and put your objections between brackets. That’s the civilized way for doing things, not through ukases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aengw (talk • contribs) 00:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• While I don't agree entirely with Aengw, I am surprised that none of the deleter crowd looked at the secondary sources that I provided. (I did not place them in the article, as people were messing with it at the time.) In particular the August 2009 article, "'First Lady' in California Exile", in The New York Post contained a great deal of coverage. Is The New York Post considered a tabloid? I do think that arguments like if the subject is ever featured in a secondary source as notable can be discounted when there are cited secondary sources readily available. I would like you to reconsider re-opening the debate so that actual discussion takes place and not some kind of "voting". --Bejnar (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Inge Lynn Collins Bongo

Someone at WP:Requests for undeletion suggested I talk to you about this case. This article was improperly speedy-deleted under CSD#G10. That criterion is "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." But several reliable sources were provided in the text (see Google cache) and a U.S. Senate report. P.S. You said that it did not contain her birthdate, but it did contain her birthdate (see Google cache). Wnt (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the presence of sources (which, incidentally, sucked) it still was a "Page[s] that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose." That sort of crap has no place on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an actual biography on that person if you can source that— but if the objective is to produce a simple list of flaws to "expose" her, then you might want to contact a tabloid instead: they are interested in that sort of thing. — Coren ^(talk) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: would you call the Good Article Jim Bell an attack page warranting similar speedy deletion? The subject, User:James dalton bell (if that's him) was indefinitely blocked soon after he joined Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, though that article has oodles of problems of its own. — Coren ^(talk) 10:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Auto mark page as patrolled

Hi Should the Coren bot automatically mark pages that it flags as patrolled? That would help on the New Pages list to keep the 'yellow' down. Thanks peterl (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That's probably a bad idea: it would mark a pageful of "PENIS PENIS PENIS" as patrolled as long as it's not the same as some other webpage.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 10:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Each One Teach One (Oneida album)

The article Each One Teach One contained a section on a proverb and a section on an album. I moved the latter into a new article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stibu (talk • contribs) 14:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot vs. the spam blacklist

How does CorenSearchBot react when it tries to tag a page (such as Lakhotia Computer Centre) but encounters the spam blacklist because it includes the URL? Does it just silently stop, taking no action? Also, at least according to the published source code, the statement on User:CorenSearchBot that CorenSearchBot uses the MediaWiki API is incorrect (it uses the deprecated method of screen scraping). Regards, PleaseStand ^(talk) 17:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you must have misread. The only screen scraping going on is when reading possible matches (i.e. random websites). We get the pretty XML from the API for the Mediawiki stuff. — Coren ^(talk) 22:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am looking at the code at http://www.uberbox.org/~marc/csb.pl. TagPage() calls WPTryEdit(), which screen scrapes the edit form, checking for the presence of an edit token and a textarea (to determine if the edit failed). The spam blacklist does not show a textarea upon failure. WPStartEdit() also screen scrapes the edit form. Sorry if this is incorrect; I'm not familiar with Perl. The reason why I am asking though is because Twinkle doesn't use the API yet (see WT:TW/BUGS#TW-B-257 and WT:TW/BUGS#TW-B-36), and I am wondering if CorenSearchBot might suffer from the same issue. I am proposing that the URL in the {{db-g12}} be nowiki'd out as one possible solution to that problem. PleaseStand ^(talk) 04:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oy! It's that old old version. That's not the code that has been running in forever! Heh. You're correct about the code you see, but that's not the right one.  :-) I'm about to go to work, but I'll update it as soon as I find a minute. — Coren ^(talk) 10:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've updated it to version 1.5; it doesn't yet have the new login code (I'm still testing that) but it has the correct API edit code. — Coren ^(talk) 20:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

i have added the acceptalbe copyright in to the ezekeil bread pages so they can stay up and not be delted. what else do i need to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadbeckers (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

CSBot

Is your bot dead or have there just been no copyright problems since early yesterday evening? Either way it's disquieting. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Coren, have you seen this? It's presumably the reason for your bot not working. – Toon 19:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It is. I've got the new login code ready and will install it in an hour or two. — Coren ^(talk) 19:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Installed. It's back up now. — Coren ^(talk) 19:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Great, thanks Coren. – Toon 19:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you're removing the entries from WP:SCV that I'm not seeing? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a bug for a bit where CSBot was going crazy. I've reverted it. — Coren ^(talk) 21:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems the bot is down again. Theleftorium 09:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Kremlinru

Coren, your bot has tagged this as being a copyvio from kremlin.ru. If you refer to {{Kremlinru}} and Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Kremlin.ru, and the permission letter from the Press Secretary to the Russian President, you can see that we have permission to use any and all materials from http://*.kremlin.ru for the project, and I have created the {{Kremlinru}} template in part due to articles being created by User:Александр Мотин being marked for deletion and copyvios just recently. Can you please amend your bots rules, so if it sees {{Kremlinru}} on the article page, it is not marked as a copyvio, as Kremlin.ru materials are licenced under CC3.0 Unported. If you need any further info, contact me on my talk page. Thanks. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 19:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Informationdelight.info

Hello, your bot tagged an article as a copyvio, when it uses a source that takes text from Wikipedia. Thought you should know. Aiken ♫ 21:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That was my material that I had from the other site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICEHOUSEINDUSTRIES

All the information I put on the original posting belongs to me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icehouseindustries (talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read the guide to donating your own copyrighted material to Wikipedia. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. — Coren ^(talk) 23:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your guts

I saw this and it gave me heart. Bearian (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this acceptable?

Just want to be sure I am doing it right: [6]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That works, though AIV may not be the ideal venue. — Coren ^(talk) 13:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you have a suggestion for a better place? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Professor Iqbal Singh

Your bot tagged the above as a copyvio of http://www.drfosterhealth.co.uk/consultant-guide/Professor-Iqbal-Singh-2672324.aspx but I'm not even sure if they are the same person. I found this odd as the bot usually does good work and does not make many errors. something lame from CBW 13:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

public domain material

Please consider modifying your bot to search for public domain text first, as such material is freely usable by anyone for any purpose and is likely to show up alot. Int21h (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Question about informing others

I am wondering if, similar to posting information about vandalism on AIV, there is a way I could (publicly) inform others of other useful facts? Here's a case study. There is an ongoing AfD which falls under the topic ban area (I used to monitor Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland for the WikiProject, which is a task nobody seems to be continuing now). The discutants there seem unawarethat there is corresponding, larger and with more notability claims article on pl wiki at pl:Latarnia Morska Sopot. Yet I am also unable to inform them of that fact, nor can I edit the stub here, to do add the (important and totally uncontroversial) interwikis, nor can I add other uncontroversial and appopriate maintenance tags such the stub tags, wikiproject tags and categories, nor can I simply expand the (uncontroversial) article to address the notability issue (as I would have simply done with the past). I am also unsure (and thus prefer not to) about whether I can ask anybody to do that outside en wiki. Am I right about that? Is there something I am missing that could be done to help, other than preparing a draft of my comment (or the entire improved article on pl wikipedia) and asking for an amendment by the Committee (which seems like a lot of effort for everyone all for allowing me to spend a few minutes to fix one minor article, or few seconds simply informing interested editors of the relevant interwikis - not to mention the fact that the amendment would likely not be resolved by the time AfD would end...)? I would appreciate your suggestions as to what I can do. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably, the best way to do this would be to find someone who is willing and able to be your "filter", where you could set aside a page where you can express concerns and they would be able to pick up on them and act accordingly. As long as this page is known in advance and on-wiki, this would seem like a workable solution to me. It probably would require a short motion to allow explicitly, but I would support it as suitable.

Remember that the reason you were sanctioned was because of off-wiki coordination which the community frowns upon; if we can find a mechanism by which you can collaborate in public view, then everyone should be happy. — Coren ^(talk) 17:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Montreal Meetup

• Hi, Coren.

I created a page, here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Montréal 2--given the Rococo gathering, I think it would be a good idea to have a meetup. What I would like is some help figuring out where to do it--help organizing it. Your input is appreciated, and please share this with others who might be of interest. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 19:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

CSBot ...

... must be broken again. :( VernoWhitney (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

So it has. Restarted. In a twist of fate, it appears that the code I added to monitor CSBot introduced a brittle external dependency that... reduced the reliability it was meant to monitor.  :-/ — Coren ^(talk) 23:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And it's the things like that which make me happy that the only programs I write anymore are for fun and don't need to be stable or remotely comprehensible by other people. ^_^ Thanks. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

CSbot, potentially dubious match

Hey,

I just got this after forking the (admittedly crummy) 86 (term) from 86 (number). The URL flagged as being the source is from ChaCha and is giving an HTTP 500 right now, but as that's a search engine I had a look around. The closest I can find from Googling are a few Yahoo Answers pages, where the responders have naturally copied their replies from the WP article. Is there any way you can double-check if this was a false positive? If so I'll get the page speedied. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Don't worry about getting it speedied, you're probably right about it being copied from here in the first place. The volunteers at WP:Copyright problems (such as me) will go through it, probably later today, and manually check if we can find any evidence of infringement. If we can't pull up the webpage I imagine we won't do anything about it, but we'll jump off that bridge when and if we get there. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

R.T.V. Bowman

Greetings! I am the Bureaucrat and primary historian for the Clemson Wiki project. I have done all the research and writing on the balance of the "old" history of Clemson University listed on the site, including all the copy on R.T.V. Bowman. I hereby grant permission for the Wikipedia to use, maintain, and expand the material that I have presented as the basis of the article for the first baseball coach at Clemson. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Mark Sublette (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read the guide to donating your own copyrighted material to Wikipedia. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. — Coren ^(talk) 20:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony Taggart

Regarding Tony Taggart and copyright, My real name is Jozef Montigue, i run jozefmontigue.tripod.com along with my brother Jamie. It is the Unofficial Eastleigh Website and i tend to use my work from the player profiles page for the players Wiki page.

Just thought i'd let you know for future references ;) --Monts 94sfc 23:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monts 94sfc (talk • contribs)

The Felt Mansion

The text of the Felt Mansion is my original wording -- see www.feltmansion.org .. The source from whom you say I copied actually copied that text from my site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattyjohoezee (talk • contribs) 13:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Fljótshlíð

Hi Coren! I must say, your bot is fantastic. However, upon creating a stub to remove a redlink from the 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull article, I got an automated message informing me of a possible copyright violation. The three lines of text I wrote for the stub (a village in southern Iceland) apparently matches text from a website: http://www.eos.nykter.fi/JsTetris/hiregb.php?tfg=eyjafjallajokull+glacier. The webpage doesn't appear to exist, with the following message: "The requested URL /JsTetris/hiregb.php was not found on this server." I am not sure how the text on any page of the parent http://www.eos.nykter.fi/ could be similar, since it seems to be a website about cheerleading in Finland, written in Swedish. Maybe you could look into the links for me. In any case, I will add more information to the stub as soon as I can find it. Best regards Jared Preston (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Lynette Hemmant

While the text is similar to the text on Unicover, it has been substantially amended and added to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatbob2010 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot false positive

This is an odd one... it's not even close (I wrote the article BTW): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macrobrachium_ohione&diff=356422282&oldid=356422196. howcheng {chat} 18:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That's indeed a downright bizarre match. Odd. — Coren ^(talk) 18:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Memefest- international festival of radical communication

Bot says "it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.thedesignencyclopedia.org/memefest?do=export_raw". This is not the case. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivervodeb (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Frontenac County Court House

My quote of the plaque in front of the building is (not surprisingly) identical to the quote of the plaque on the website your bot found: http://www.ontarioplaques.com/Plaques_DEF/Plaque_Frontenac54.html Is the text on the plaque (placed there in 1986, if that matters) copyright and therefore not supposed to be on Wikipedia? If so, feel free to delete my quoting of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoftwareSimian (talk • contribs) 21:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

John Henry Handicap

Dear Bot, your computer brain is dead wrong in this instance. "Bloodhose" has NO ARTICLE anywhere, anyplace, anytime, on this race. Handicapper (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Coren

Your Bot scored a first "copyright vio" out of more than 1,000 TB races here. You need to adjust how your "Bot" is set to searching. It shouldn't be picking up a simple (public domain) sports statistic/score. Handicapper (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

BullRangifer, pseudoscience, ghosts and the NSF

Sorry for bothering you directly, but I feel justified because of this and because you are being referred to here.

Since you seem to have misunderstood the background: The etymology (pseudo-science), all dictionaries (e.g. wikt:pseudoscience), all encyclopedias (e.g. pseudoscience), all philosophers of science who have dealt with the question (e.g. Karl Popper, who initiated rigorous examination of what is and what isn't pseudoscience), and AFAICT all notable sceptics (e.g. Michael Shermer) agree that being "like science" in one way or another is a necessary trait of pseudoscience. It follows that subjects can only be considered pseudoscience if science-like activity (but which is not science) takes up a lot of space in the perception of these topics.

Unless your reading is dominated by sceptical or pseudoscientific literature, which naturally concentrates on the pseudoscientific aspects/subfields of any subject that has such, you will have to agree that that is not the case for "ghosts", "haunted houses", "reincarnation" or "witches". The English language is rich enough to describe such topics that lack any rational foundation, but which are dominated by aspects such as literature (e.g. Hamlet for ghosts), religion (e.g. Buddhism for reincarnation) or folk belief (e.g. witches), so that any attempts to prove them real using something like science (i.e. genuine pseudoscience) are fringe even for the topics themselves.

I don't doubt that some people use the word "pseudoscience" more loosely, but encyclopedias are supposed to use language precisely, especially when alternatives such as "paranormal", "irrational", "unfounded", "nonsense" are readily available, and especially in the leads of articles where it really matters. (I.e. when we say "A is B" in the lead of our article on A or B, the reader has an expectation that we are talking about A as discussed in our article on A, and about B in the strict sense as defined in the article on B, not as a synonym for "nonsense".)

The only reliable sources that anyone could find so far that refer to these topics as pseudoscientific (or more precisely, to belief in them as pseudoscientific belief – BullRangifer insists on the distinction) are the 2002, 2004 and 2006 editions of the "Science and Engineering Indicators" (SEI). The SEI is a biannual publication on science statistics for US politicians. Only these two editions talk about pseudoscience, i.e. the section was not yet present in the 2000 edition, and it was dropped in the 2008 edition. The draft of the 2010 edition had a paragraph about belief in evolution and Big Bang which was (controversially) dropped because of inaccuracies.

Under these circumstances, do you think it is appropriate that BullRangifer is using your opinion in his attempt to shut down discussion? Hans Adler 09:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: "In this case I was really in doubt because of the original objections of Ludwigs2, Hans Adler, and a couple other pushers of fringe POV. Since the arguments of such editors don't carry much weight, I decided to get more input. I did what is recommended in such situations. I started an RfC on the matter and got a resounding "yes" that I was correct. In another RfC on the same matter, but for a different reason (a specific way to use the statement), I got another resounding "yes". In both RfCs these two objectors repeated their arguments which were repeatedly debunked by many others. A number of admins and at least one ArbCom member agreed with me. The RfCs were closed with very strong endorsement of the correctness of the statement for the proposed use. Since then they have refused to abide by the consensus in those RfCs." [7]

Gwen Gale, who closed the RfCs, has already clarified that BullRangifer was overinterpreting the RfCs. Perhaps he is also overinterpreting your support in one of them? Hans Adler 15:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

To Coren: The topic is the statement by the National Science Board (NSB) about "pseudoscientific beliefs", not about "pseudo-science". Although closely related, they are indeed two different topics and the precise choice of words is important. That's why the RfCs were so specific, and you affirmed that the NSB did say it. When a definition of pseudoscience (one of many for an imprecise topic) is mistakenly/misleadingly applied by objectors to a point that isn't the same, then the discussion becomes very muddled, and that's what's happened. "Beliefs" can be correctly described as "pseudoscientific" (it happens all the time), even in the absence of them being held in any scientifically related or meaningful way. If they are based on a lack of critical thinking and understanding of the scientific method and scientific facts, they may (depending on the circumstances) be considered "pseudoscientific beliefs".

That's what the NSB wrote (and explained in detail throughout the whole source page), but we're not being allowed to use their statement anywhere here to document that they have even said it. Note that it hasn't been used to make an unattributed statement of fact: "Belief in "blablabla" IS a pseudoscientific belief". That would be wrong. It has only been used to document that the NSB wrote it on the NSF website, and it's clearly attributed to them as their opinion. That's a very NPOV manner of documenting what a RS says, but that's not being allowed because some editors (those who were in the distinct minority in both RfCs) believe the NSB is wrong. That violates "verifiability, not truth". Personal beliefs about the truth of a matter, especially when there isn't unquestioned belief that it's wrong, should not be used to exclude a source. As long as there is discussion and debate about its truthfulness, it's an unsettled matter and one side of that debate shouldn't be allowed to exclude statements from such a notable RS on the basis of their personal beliefs. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I'm on ArbCom. It would be poor form, at best, to adjudicate a content dispute. — Coren ^(talk) 23:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You did express a POV in the RfC and you can also comment here as an editor with great experience. If that means you would have to later recuse yourself if necessary, so be it. I think it would be more helpful for you to offer your advice and opinions now to help settle things, especially if I have misunderstood you or if you have misunderstood me. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I accept that, but allow me to repeat why I came here: You did !vote in a badly formed RfC, it looked to me as if you had not paid much attention to it, and BullRangifer later referred to your !vote as if it carried some authority (once under your name, twice as an Arbcom member, IIRC). Hans Adler 06:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

That Coren "is" an ArbCom member is one thing, but he can't !vote "as an Arbcom member". There's a difference. His status as an ArbCom member doesn't give him any "authority" when editing, but it does incur respect in some, and probably not in others. I for one generally value the input of those with more experience. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I see I have to make very clear what this is about:

• "[...] In this case I was really in doubt because of the original objections of Ludwigs2, Hans Adler, and a couple other pushers of fringe POV. Since the arguments of such editors don't carry much weight, I decided to get more input. {{green|[...]} I started an RfC on the matter and got a resounding 'yes' that I was correct. In another RfC on the same matter, but for a different reason (a specific way to use the statement), I got another resounding 'yes'. In both RfCs these two objectors repeated their arguments which were repeatedly debunked by many others. [Note: I objected to the first RfC, as did Dbachmann, and did not voice any opinion in the second. Nothing was 'debunked' in either.] A number of admins and at least one ArbCom member agreed with me. The RfCs were closed with very strong endorsement of the correctness of the statement for the proposed use. [Note: Gwen Gale later said the close 'was way over-extrapolated'.] Since then they have refused to abide by the consensus in those RfCs. [...]" [8]
• "Fortunately it's not really 'a lot'. It just seems that way because Hans Adler and Ludwigs2 have been making lots of noise. It's basically lots of repetition, and when two do it the result is twice as much as my replies, which gives a false impression. [Note: There is a lot of repetition on both sides because one side has chosen to declare the other side's arguments for a priori invalid and the matter closed.] Rereading the two RfCs is very interesting. Not only have these two been repeating arguments that were shown to be fallacious back then, some of the few opposers seem to have not even understood the issue (i.e. don't understand basic English), including one admin, and yet they mouthed of and revealed their confusion. [See note above about my participation in these RfCs.] That's really sad. The other admins, and even an ArbCom member, understood very well and supported the RfCs. The fact that these two remain a distinct minority should be raising red flags in their minds, but apparently not. Everyone else is wrong, and they only are right? Hmmmm....." [9]
• "You really should study both RfCs, especially the one about this article. Gwen Gale did it enough to make a very clear conclusion, one which was an echo of the overwhelming consensus. Other admins (except for a couple fringy ones) supported them, including Coren, an ArbCom member. This is about the verifiability of a statement from a very notable RS, and other speculations and personal beliefs need to be kept out of the discussion. It is especially on that last point where you are ignoring policy. 'Verifiability, not truth' is designed to keep such arguments from being used to exclude good sources. The reason there has been trouble is exclusively because of two editors who have refused to abide by the consensus. They are the ones you should be blocking for their disruption over the last two months. I'm the one who has acted in good faith, and they are the ones whom you're protecting? Very odd indeed." [10]

Coren, it is OK if you do not respond. If BullRangifer doesn't understand at this point that only a tiny minority of editors supports edits such as this, then I doubt that anything you could say outside your official capacity would change this. I will try to prepare something for a lightweight Arbcom procedure (whatever that is called, and assuming there is an acceptable one) based on one of the previous pseudoscience cases. Hans Adler 07:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hans, you are wrong about my possible reaction to any of Coren's advice. (You are yet again failing to AGF, and that's a blockable offense.) I wouldn't be asking for his and Gwen Gale's advice if I wasn't willing to learn. I'd like to learn how to apply policies that are obviously being interpreted very differently. BTW, there is nothing like a "lightweight" ArbCom case. I have been in one ArbCom case before. Although it ended relatively favorably for me and disastrously for my accusers, I consider it a life-threatening experience. I do so because justice is not ensured, one has no civil rights, personal attacks, outings and serious libel are allowed free reign without any referee to stop it, ArbCom members with a COI may still participate and use their prejudices to spin things against you without any evidence, etc.. It's exceedingly stressful to feel so defenseless. It bears little resemblance to a court of law where one has a defender and certain rights. One of my accusers was/is a constant suicide risk, and even I fleetingly (2 secs!) considered it. It should not be entered lightly. ArbCom proceedings should be reserved for very serious and ongoing disruption and serious policy violations, not misunderstandings, content disputes, or to settle personal grievances and differences of opinion. It's not a place to carry out your and Ludwigs2's long-planned revenge for being in the distinct RfC minority. No place at Wikipedia is suited for that. You really do need to take the high road and get over this. Bearing a grudge isn't healthy.

Do you really intend to disrupt Wikipedia with a time-wasting revenge ArbCom about your difference of opinion with me and the NSB that is past history (as far as editing content goes)? Note that I have dropped the matter and am only commenting a couple places, most notably on a subpage set up by Gwen Gale where we can discuss things without your interference. I haven't attempted to revert your deletions of the National Science Board (NSB) statement which you consider to be unreliable, in contrast to the majority in the two RfCs. (Will you also prosecute them?) I always acted in good faith based on the results of the consensus in the two RfCs, coupled with the Psi ArbCom ruling (which was incorporated into NPOV until recently) on how we are to treat pseudoscience. Is such following of policy a "violation" worthy of an ArbCom case? (I should be rewarded for trying to follow policy!)

I previously understood that a clear and overwhelming RfC consensus should be respected and that you and Ludwigs2, as the two main objectors, were refusing to abide by consensus when you edit warred over the matter. I quickly withdrew from any temptation to edit war and stuck to discussion. Your actions would usually be considered disruptive and your deletions would normally be considered vandalism in such cases. If I am mistaken about consensus meaning anything around here, so be it. Go ahead and prosecute me for that misunderstanding. I stand corrected and will note that consensus apparently means nothing to you, even though I still (apparently mistakenly) consider it to be very (!!!) important. How about that? Is that good enough for wasting the community's time with an ArbCom about past history?

I find it rather ironic that you'd use the Psi ArbCom sanctions against someone who is so well known for opposing pseudoscience and who never attempted to misuse the NSB to make a statement of fact, but only to document that they made the statement. (Will you accuse me of violating WP:V?) Their exact quote was always presented as their attributed opinion, not as a fact, which is very NPOV, but you won't allow that anywhere at Wikipedia. Will you accuse me of violating NPOV also? (Or would the ArbCom find you guilty of violating NPOV by excluding one significant POV without any sources to back you up?) As requested by admin Arthur Rubin, if you really decide to start your threatened revenge RfC/U (now apparently an ArbCom case), I should notify him, since, as he noted, you had obviously provoked me (by your refusal to abide by consensus).

This is a matter that has been dropped by me as far as editing content goes. We still disagree but it has no impact on Wikipedia since I haven't edit warred over the matter. It's not my fault when other editors respect the consensus in the RfCs and defend my policy-based edits. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used as a battleground and there is no disruption occurring from my side. If you misuse ArbCom and community time and resources, that would indeed be disruptive and using it as a battleground for your revenge. We all have better things to do than seeking revenge for the past. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

BullRangifer, this isn't about a new Arbcom case. I am merely about to follow Carcharoth's advice when I went into a bit too much detail at a clarification request that was only tangentially related: "I agree with Hans Adler about the ghosts and pseudoscience matter, but that should be a separate clarification (possibly related to one of the cases that concerned pseudoscience)" [11]

(By the way, based on Abd's subsequent behaviour I am unlikely to stick my head out for him in this way again. I was not familiar with his methods when I did that.)

I have changed my mind from RfC/U to Arbcom clarification request, in part because Carcharoth made me aware that's a possibility, and in part because I'm a bit worried that an RfC/U could be dominated by noise from people like Guyonthesubway (who never seems to read the things he comments on) on one side and fringers on the other.

I am glad to hear that you have dropped the underlying matter. I hope that means you are not going to revert this. But I can see no indication that you have learned from the experience. Unfortunately that means I have to proceed, to prevent repetitions. The amount of time I had to spend in order to deal with your misplaced activism is simply mind-boggling. Hans Adler 09:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff to that clarification case. I wasn't aware my name had been taken in vain there. No one told me.

You pretend to be surprised when you say you're "glad to hear" that I've dropped the matter, but you've known this full well for some time (around here that can be from a few days to several weeks), and yet you have pursued the matter and me as if I were actively participating. I am still discussing, but in a very limited manner. Is that a sin worthy of a clarification case?

And NO, I'm not going to revert your deletions of the very notable NSB/NSF SEI source resoundingly approved in both RfCs. I haven't been doing it either. If other editors defend the source, that's not my fault. Your irritation with them seems to be affecting your attitude toward me and that's not fair. That others are resisting you should tell you that this isn't a black and white matter and that you could just as well be wrong.

You are on a deletionism campaign. Your allergic reaction to the NSB is showing and your campaign is doing work that brings much satisfaction to all the pushers of fringe and pseudoscientific POV here. They definitely don't want anyone knowing that something so notable as the National Science Board has labelled their pet ideas "pseudoscientific beliefs". You're violating NPOV by doing this. You should be allowing other editors to do this work. If uninvolved editors see the statement as problematic, they will likely bring new insights as to how to properly deal with this. You are far too involved to be doing this.

The amount of time you and Ludwigs2 have used in your refusal to abide by the consensus in the two RfCs is indeed "mind-boggling", so you see this cuts both ways. Every time you point a finger at me you are providing diffs that reveal you have been disruptive. I have usually been responding to you rather than initiating anything.

I also note that your edit summaries are as misleading as usual. The NSB/NSF SEI source is anything but "non-notable". Whether it's "technically incorrect" or not is a matter of interpretation with many editors on each side and no RS which takes the NSB to task for repeatedly making such statements in their bienniel SEI reports. If the statement was so "technically incorrect", one would think someone notable had objected to their statements, but I've never seen such an objection, and definitely not in a RS. I'd consider the National Science Board to be correct when they make statements like that for which they take full responsibility, which are subject to internal and external peer review, and which have been repeated in about three reports in one form or another:

• "The National Science Board Members were closely involved in all phases of the preparation of this report." [12]

• "SEI is prepared by the National Science Foundation's Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS) on behalf of the National Science Board. It is subject to extensive review by outside experts, interested federal agencies, NSB members, and SRS internal reviewers for accuracy, coverage, and balance." [13]

You and Ludwigs2 have labelled the statement produced under such conditions wrong, an error, inaccurate, a passing remark, a goof up, non-notable, and such like comments. You have done everything you could to deprecate the NSB and the statement. I'll take their word over yours any day, and apparently most editors in the RfCs did the same, even though you vehemently objected then, and continue to do so. Many editors debunked your arguments, yet you refused to stop and you continue to refuse to abide by the consensus. THAT'S why so much "mind-boggling" time has been used on this matter. I have only responded when my name has been taken in vain or you have misrepresented the situation.

You are yet again violating "verifiability, not truth" by imposing your OR interpretation of the truthfulness of the statement as an exclusion criteria (when other editors disagree with you) and you're violating NPOV by refusing to allow a notable and well sourced opposing POV being presented as the NSB's attributed opinionm, NOT as a statement of fact. Note that opposing POV by nature will always be considered untrue and technically incorrect by some editors. That doesn't allow us to delete them. That would be whitewashing. Maybe move them from the lead, but not delete them. The proper thing to do if there's a real problem would be to move them to the criticism section, if one exists, or incorporate the statement and source somewhere else in the article, but you haven't been allowing even that. You delete it on sight with specious reasoning and misleading edit summaries.

I haven't been advocating a POV so much as defending the use of a notable source in an NPOV manner. It's rare when a national science body makes any statement on the subject, and per Wikipedia:Fringe theories we should take such statements seriously, not deprecate them because their relative rarity, according to defenders of fringe POV "must mean that the scientific body just slipped up when they mentioned pseudoscience". That's what you and Ludwigs2 have been doing and the "fringers" love you for it. Just because scientific bodies don't usually comment on pseudoscience and quackery doesn't mean that scientists don't have an opinion. On the contrary. They understand science and they recognize pseudoscience when they see it. The whole NSB page in question, including the quote, states clearly that they are very concerned about the problem of how and why people hold pseudoscientific beliefs. This is about as in depth a coverage as you're ever going to get on the subject from a scientific body. Note that they quote skeptical sources very approvingly, and they usually just let skeptics do the job of debunking such nonsense, since skeptics are the activist scientists who bother to deal with the frontier battles where pseudoscientists and quacks are active with their deceptions.

Relevant links:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally considered pseudoscience (The NSB is such a scientific body.)

• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories

Brangifer (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Page removed

Please note the email I sent to someone who copied my original article. I have had numerous requests for the subject matter (Order of wedding speeches) and thought it a good wiki insert.

I am really having problems finding my way around wikipedia to report the above. Although someone gets back light flash when a problem is perceived, resolving a problem seems to loop in circles. Could someone please come back to me. I have read the comments on my contributions page but I am still learning to speak Wiklish.

Best regards,

Mavrik33 (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

<info@wedding-speech-review-centre.com> To: jeremytang_aka@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Mon, 12 April, 2010 9:21:09 Subject: Copied Article

I note that you are using one of my articles submitted to articlesbase without a hyperlink to our site or the original article.

Your use of the article without posting acknowlegdgement backlinks is causing us plagiarism issues when I try to use extracts for other purposes.

Please either immediately insert a link to the articlesbase article or delete the article and all reference to it from your site immediately and revert when this is done.

Otherwise we will file DMCA violation notifications with your webhost (GoDaddy) and affiliate advertising services (Google, Clickbank). We will also instruct our UK solicitors to issue summons against you for financial damages.

Please reply immediately and confirm removal.

Blade Steel

I did not copy another site. I also cited information that I used, and I probably over cited at too. Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

just checked the link. It was the SAME article I made, only through a proxy or something. Halofanatic333 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I reviewed it at the copyright problems board and noticed that too, so there's no problem with the article. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers indeed! Just wasn't able to verify what happened since my school blocks Proxies. Halofanatic333 (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

John carruthers (Glasgow Film Maker

Hello,

Carruthers Guitars has no relevance to this page- I have removed the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Roach 2104 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Vega Monsters and Alex Vega

The individual Alex Vega has no relevance to Vega Monsters from Grendizer. I removed the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yapool Seijin (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Jrienstra

CorenSearchBot says that I copied [[14]] I don't think that I copied this website in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrienstra (talk • contribs) 04:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sir Robert McCarrison article

Following the automated notice, I have placed the Creative Commons notice on the page which is the source of the quoted text, ie http://mccarrisonsociety.org.uk/founders-of-nutrition-othermenu-149/134-sir-robert-mccarrison

I am the webmaster and committee member of the McCarrison Society who hold the copyight to this and much of the other content on the site. After discussion with the Committee, I may put the notice on all pages by putting it in the CMS template. Thank you for your attention, Trevor Bennett —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevbennett (talk • contribs) 12:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Arledge false positive

Your CorenSearchBot incorrectly tagged Arledge with a copyvio; the tag has been removed. Considering the number of other false positives being reported here, I think you should consider revising your bot. AlphaPyro (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You're making two unwarranted presumptions: that all (or event most) of the "false positives" reported here are actual false positives, and that they represent a significant fraction of the total taggings made by CSBot. Neither are correct. — Coren ^(talk) 23:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right on both accounts, sorry about that. AlphaPyro (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: CorenSearchBot

CorenSearchBot has been leaving messages at my bot page with some false positives. Here is an example. Is it possible to turn off checking my bot contributions from the search list? Please let me know. Thanks. Ganeshk (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The section about the golf course that was flagged on Texas Tech Red Raiders golf is a wikipedia mirror: [15]. NThomas (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Evolution and Religious Creation Myths

I think I solved the problem. Have a look now? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't see any copyvio left. Good work. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

second foundation consulting

Copy on the Second Foundation Consulting page is intentionally in alignment with information located at second-foundation.com to provide a unified online presence for the corporation. members of the Second Foundation marketing team are maintaining the page, as such there is absolutely no conflict with utilizing this copy. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcanoe (talk • contribs) 20:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Mississippi Slim (country singer)

There are now two articles - Mississippi Slim (country singer) and Mississippi Slim (blues musician) - for the different musicians, plus a disamb page here. Apologies, no doubt I performed the move incorrectly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note: cut & paste move, now repaired. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Selena Foundation

Ok I have fixed the information thanks! AJona1992 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Relational Leader

The bot states that I used copywritten material - because I listed the ISBN number for the book. I was hired by the publisher and the author of the book to get it online - and this makes me look silly and unprofessional. Please fix this immediately!! THANKS -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imtellinhelen (talk • contribs) 18:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, your article has been tagged (then deleted) not because you cited the ISBN but because you copied the promotional blurb, which is not appropriate on Wikipedia for a number of reasons (including our prohibition against advertisement, and the fact that it's a copyright violation). It's also generally not appropriate to use Wikipedia on behalf of someone with a direct interest in the topic given that it goes against our conflict of interest guidelines. — Coren ^(talk) 23:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Jay Littman

Bot cited http://www.naymz.com/jay_littman_1992522, but bottom of that page shows "Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jay_Litman" - where the Article was first composed. Naymz.com copied the text from Wikipedia. So I removed the template and CSD  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

There's more than meets the eye to this one. Blanked and posted at WP:CP, left a summary note at original contrib page. MLauba ^(Talk) 00:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I Rock

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of I Rock, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://blogs.abc.net.au/abc_tv/2009/08/cameras-start-rolling-on-i-rock.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

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) 00:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made some drastic changes to the article. J Bar (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Acrimoney

Acrimoney.com is the source of the information the bot found on BestThinking.com, not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megvon (talk • contribs) 13:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert E. McKee

I accidentally posted a copied paragraph. The source's contents are in the public domain anyway. Regardless of that, the contents have been dramatically changed and reflect my own intellectual property which I obviously surrender to the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooter McBoogerballs (talk • contribs) 22:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Carers Poverty Alliance

Hello, I am Leader and founder member of Carers Poverty Alliance, and our website has all the information on, however I have done a temporary page,I hope this acceptable to you, as it would be nice to have this information on Wikipedia. Kind regards Krys2549 (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krys2549 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

NH

I've left a more detailed rationale on his talk page. DS (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no copyright issue...I own this information.

There is no copyright issue here. If you look at the other site, I gave them permission to use my information. I own the copyright to all of this information, including the photo. Please restore this file. This is the second time I've had to go through this. It is very frustrating. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tombaine#Henry_William_Adamson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombaine (talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

copyright

the material is public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csamuelesq (talk • contribs) 23:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Billinghurst#James Shaw Willes

As per the bot's command here with commentary. To note that the article that it flagged is text from the article s:A Compendium of Irish Biography/Willes, Sir James Shaw (similarly just added), from s:Page:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu/589 (data added 17 Apr). The article was appropriately referenced to WS, which seems to have not been a test performed. It may be useful (and trivial?) to have the bot follow a refs to WS to check validity of text, or at least the existence of the page. Note that {{IrishBioWS}} exists, however, an inline reference was more appropriate. billinghurst sDrewth 11:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Coren, would you please remove the site http://www.libraryireland.com/biography/ from your search check as they are using a public domain source for their text, and it is the same text which I am fully reproducing at Wikisource. billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Whitelisted. — Coren ^(talk) 14:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Here Comes The Kraken

CorenSearchBot tagged this article as a copyright of a page that turns out to be nonexistent. Can you please look into that? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Judging from other searches, the page definitely used to exist, and still appears on the Yahoo search used by CSBot (AFAIK), so it was likely only recently deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Claudio Osorio

I just removed the advice and removed the copyright info BredoteauU2 (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Indomitableal

I believe the SearchBot flagged the content of my article in error.

The name of my article is Zest (positive psychology), and it says that the content of the article resembles that of manojagarwal.com. I read through the content of the site, but none of it seemed to warrant such a flag. It simply does not seem to have anything to do with my article on Zest.

Thank you for your consideration. Indomitableal (talk) 07:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The sky is falling

Your bot seems to be down: contribs, tool indicates the last article it processed was the one listed at 0800. – Toon 12:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's running, though you shouldn't trust the status tool anymore— I had to rip out some of its functionality for stability reason. I'll keep an eye on it to make sure it really is just a coincidence. — Coren ^(talk) 15:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Merci pour ton commentaire Coren [16], mais je trouve franchement que ces positions sont injustes: je contribue d'une façon civile, je fournie un nombre de sources incroyable, mais la seule chose qu'Arbcom trouve à faire, c'est encore de prolonger mes restrictions d'un an dès qu'Elonka se plaint, et en plus sans cause objective. Je trouve que des décisions un peu plus subtiles auraient lieu d'être, surtout eut égard à la qualité et la quantité de mes contributions à cette encyclopédie... Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 16:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Start-Up@Singapore

Hi,

I have created an article related to Start-Up@Singapore, a business plan competition organized in Singapore by the National University of Singapore Entrepreneurship Society (NES). I have acquired all the data from their website, and have cited all information, thereby avoiding any copyright infringement. As the intention is to provide a clear understanding of the competition, and not any personal gains, I believe the article should not be flagged. As I do not claim ownership of the information, and have not manipulated the data to misrepresent Start-Up @ Singapore in any manner, I hope the article is restored. It is not a marketing/promotional stint either.

Thanks.

(Ruchiahuja (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

David Arnold (disambiguation) - inappropriate bot tag

Your bot claims this disambiguation page is a copyvio. Obviously this is nonsense. It only has a single line of text, and bears no resemblance to the page it is claimed I copied. What's more, it suggests I can remove a tag from the page, but none was added. JRawle (Talk) 16:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Excirial beat you to it and already removed the tag for the same reason. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for entertainment value, the bot in fact reacted to the short excerpt of the lead sentence of the film composer's article (on Wikipedia) that was present on the page identified by CSB as a potential source. The bot is, as almost always, spot on in terms of identification but lacks the human brain to discard such false positives.

And before someone suggest whitelisting linkbacks to wikipedia obtained that way, let's just bear in mind that more often than not CSB detects a cut & paste move that must be repaired. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Coren -- I have posted something new at Response to Coren:

I wonder what distinguishes the Tang Dynasty "clarification" thread from "Strategic default"? If this is not "Strategic default", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

Ping.

Coren -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do?

I look forward to your further comments; and I continue to hope for action. --Tenmei (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

MGS Narayanan

I've rewritten M.G.S. Narayanan.Please remove the tag if its fine now.NMKuttiady (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

CATALYSIS(band)

I submitted my bands info for a new page & got a content violation from some other thing called the talent farm.. I'm part of the band CATALYSIS & own all copyrights to the name & such content about the band. Please flag them as they are now in violation.

Thank you Shawn Brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kildare1970 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your article is tagged for deletion as not asserting significance, not as a copyright violation, but even if it wasn't you would have to follow the steps listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials in order for us to be able to accept the material. Finally, If you want thetalentfarm.com to stop using your copyrighted material, maybe you should tell them that? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok please delete then.. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kildare1970 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Another PD template?

CSBot just tagged 45th Ohio Infantry as copyvio, when it was appropriately tagged with {{CWR}} indicating its PD source. Figured you should know to avoid further false positives with this info. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It also tagged 27th Ohio Infantry in the same situation a few days ago, so it's not a one-time thing. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

{{CWR}} isn't one of the tags the bot knew. It does now.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 01:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks. Oh, and thanks for not yelling at me for kind of taking over your talk page recently. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Online Journal of Bioinformatics

Got your message. I am the Editor-In-Chief We shall rewrite the Authors page if you like and include impact factor assessments ect probably better not to copy ad verbatim the authors page. So you can remove entirely until we get back to you Thank you. That is using this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Journal_of_Bioinformatics —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnlineJournalBioinformatics (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Archeowiki

I made a mistake and thought that Archeowiki and wikipedia were somehow related. I removed all the text related to archeowiki off the page (Abusir papyri). Thanks for catching that mistake! --AnnekeBart (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

T.C. Elliott

I think your bot is confused!!! It is claiming the article T.C. Elliott is a substantial copy of this page. Quite how it came to this conclusion when the article refers to an early English cricketer and the webpage is about Nebraska Ancestree; I have removed the tag. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Nabokov story

Your bot has picked up the fact that an entry on Vladimir Nabokov's short story 'Details of a Sunset' is similar/identical to the text on an existing web page - viz, http://dev.mantex.co.uk/2009/09/24/details-of-a-sunset/

I am the author and ownder of the copyright to that page, and I am making some of its content available to Wikipedia.

This is one of my first contributions to Wikipedia, and I am quite happy to follow the guidelines show above regarding donation of copyrighted material.

Roy singleton (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Roll (music)

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Roll is obviously a copy of Wikipedia, not the other way around. Hyacinth (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

/* JOONIE */ inappropriate bot tag

I am the writer of that copy on http://airplaydirect.com/charts/artist.php?band_id=32252.

Please make the bot stop.

So technically, they are using my material.

We, Hitclub Entertainment, own the rights to the content and created the content which we provided to airplay direct.

{{OTRS pending}}

Judith B. Klein 03:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)JudyHCKleinJudith B. Klein 03:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok this is getting annoying. I rewrote the Bio and it still keeps getting flagged.

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Joonie, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://airplaydirect.com/charts/artist.php?band_id=32252

Not cool.

Judith B. Klein 03:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)JudyHCKleinJudith B. Klein 03:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar Case Comments

I just wanted to bring to your attention a few things on the Gibraltar case.

1. When I was having problems I said some regrettable things, which I have apologised for, if you still feel a topic ban is appropriate then I'm not going to argue about it. I just make the point that bans and blocks are supposedly preventative not punitive. I made those remarks whilst in a bad place, they haven't been repeated and they're out of character. Now that I am a lot better is it still appropriate?

2. The assertion that the self-governing status of Gibraltar is an "opinion" not a fact. Sorry but I cannot accept that remaining in the case. Gibraltar is self-governing, it is a fact that the Spanish editors could not dispute. Instead they have tried to use a combination of synthesis and original research to try and minimise the status in the article. Their motivation in doing so is based on Spanish nationalism toward Gibraltar, where it is portrayed as a British colony on stolen Spanish soil. Those comments are only serving to buttress Spanish nationalism to skew the POV of the article not to achieve NPOV. I think you're being incredibly naive if you feel those remarks are helpful in steering the dispute, I can see those remarks coming back to haunt you in various nationalist disputes.

3. When this case was started, I couldn't participate fully as my father was ill and another editor was hospitalised. The evidence produced by a number of editors who've effectively held the article hostage was directed toward removing editors they disagreed with by topic bans; you'll note that I didn't propose of suggest any blocks/bans/sanctions against individuals. Effectively what you're proposing is to remove one side but leave the other intact. You're rewarding editors for baiting others into uncivil remarks.

4. In reading your comments I can only conclude you have apparently disregarded the workshop. In the workshop there was case of RHoPF hounding editors, walls of text being put up to derail discussion by Ecemaml, non-apologies such as "I'm sorry you were offended by my joke" not to mention examples of bad faith and uncivil remarks:

[17] activity, obstinacy, discourtesy, incompetence at communication, and nationalism form a demonic combination
[18] "Gibnews' rottweiler" repeated [19]

[20] I get a sense of "if I'm going down I'm taking you with me" here.
[21] So that is three untruths in the same section from you, Why are you telling untruths here, Justin?

5. In the workshop, the editors were lobbying to have my conduct examined more fully. I would still welcome that.

6. This was never an arbcom case, there had been no previous attempt at long term solutions. I can only note my bitter disappointment that arbcom would punish one group of violators while allowing another group of violators to go free without even a token slap or even have their conduct examined at all. Particularly an editor who apparently delights in teasing and tormenting those with temporary mental problems. I've seen this editor hounding people for years and I can't believe he is going to get away with it again.

The solution you're proposing might reduce conflict, well if you ban only one side then what's left can violently agree on skewing the POV of the article. What it isn't is a long term solution, I did propose something like this some time ago [22], it would be more workable. Justin talk 09:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice about copyrighted material

I just wrote the article about AdaControl, and got a notice that the text looked like the one in http://www.adalog.fr/adacontrol2.html. The reason is they both derive from AdaControl's User's Guide, which is under a free license.

Anyway, I own the copyright for both the page and the guide. Anything else I should do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosen (talk • contribs) 08:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Info is on your talk page, the article and the article's talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)