User talk:Coren/Archive Dec 2007

UPDATE: Permission is granted for the information to be used by other websites and it can be verified by the source of the bio (Jordan). How do I proceed now without the information being deleted again?

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.31.225 (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put a bio on wiki that I have permission to publish here by the source, Jordan Bayne. If you'd like I can send you the email I rec'd from her, as well as contact information for the actress/producer/director/writer so you can verify the permission, so that it isn't deleted again. How should I proceed? Thanks :)

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) 23:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged my Tomcat Coyote article. Since then, I have significantly changed and shortened the Tomcat Coyote article to avoid duplication with that on the Apache Tomcat page. The Coyote article is needed to complement articles already in existence for Tomcat Catalina and Tomcat Jasper. All three are main components of the Apache Tomcat web server —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezani (talk • contribs) 04:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Your bot messaged me about Bennie Osler because it was very similar to my sandbox User:Shudde/sandbox. If you can you may want to prevent it making comparisions with user space, or even better, userspace with sandbox in the title. Just thought I'd let you know. - Shudde ^talk 09:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much like the message directly above (Bennie Osler), your bot left a message stating that the article I moved from User:Rebecca/Drafts/Members of the Australian Senate, 1901-1903 to the article space. It would be useful for the Bot to recognise that the word "Draft", like "Sandbox" usually means that people are working on an article that will be added to the article. Does this mean that I am going to get a warning message every time I move something from my Sandbox to its article space? --Roisterer (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above -- probably want to eliminate User space comparisons. For instance I am trying to fix the List of members of the National Academy of Sciences, which is 150K+, by splitting it into its constituent subsections; I don't want to end up with dozens of these CorenSearchBot messages, please. --Lquilter (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes— I'm just back from a business trip which means I'll be able to fix CSBot's problem with userspace sources. Expect a fix before next week. — Coren ^(talk) 18:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The material used in the Wikipedia article was based on a press release from the Diocese of Olympia I received as a reporter covering his consecration. It was meant to be used again (and again, and again). I have added additional comments about this in the talk section of Gregory H. Rickel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrchapman (talk • contribs) 01:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if this had been on a talk page, I'd have left it alone. Editing someone else's user page without invitation, however, is rather rude. — Coren ^(talk) 04:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says at the bottom, "You may edit this page! Really, you can! Please feel free to do so! Make an edit! After all, that's what Wikipedia is all about!" – Gurch 04:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSB tagged this article. It seems that it found a match against a commercial website that is mirroring content from another WP article Western Airlines part of which I had copied as a seed to start the specific article on the flight.LeadSongDog 16:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for blocking Giove. You would do good to block this guy, too, as it would seem that he is a Giove puppet. They both hate the same users, are both Italian, and both make the same grammatical mistakes when speaking in English. Reply on my talk page. Best, --Gp75motorsports 17:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi. Thanks for the message. The title of the original article was "HMS Press". Victoriagirl 18:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did you delete that stub? I think that my answer was enough here. --Codorado 18:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the explanation, i will try to do better next time.--Codorado 19:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i put a headline saying credit to myxxonline.com and i didnt use all the info from the website i changed it around a bit

Actually, the article was deleted because it was an article about a band that did not make an assertion of importance or significance. — Coren ^(talk) 19:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving the article from "Ethernet hub" to "Network hub", I will improve Wikipedia articles whenever needed. QQ 20:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Coren SearchBot, You seem to have tagged this new article about the society, because it includes a snippet of text about its own aims from the society's own website. This is OK. (If not, could you inform me what you would need to know to be be assured that it is OK?) Thanks.

Feline Hymnic 21:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Coren SearchBot, You seem to have tagged this new article about the society, because it includes a snippet of text about its own aims from the society's own website. Could you inform me what, if anything, you would need to know to be be assured that it is OK? Thanks.

(Similar request to that for Hymn Society of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Feline Hymnic 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'bot automatically tagged the page SAM as a duplicate of Sam. I was in the process of splitting these pages apart when your 'bot tagged the SAM page and left a message on my user page. Perhaps, you should give a few more minutes before your 'bot tags an article as duplicate. Just a suggestion, but I've fixed the problem. — Val42 21:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi. You declined {{db-nonsense}} on National Internal Growth for Gaining Environmental Reconstruction‎ but gave no reason. I tagged it per WP:VAN which states that vandalism is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" and requires bad faith. IMHO adding an article about a non-existent organisation compromises the integrity of WP, and we can be sure the author was acting in bad faith because of the offensive acronym and also because of this edit.

WP:VAN states that "if all versions of the article are pure vandalism, mark it for speedy deletion by tagging it with {{db-nonsense}}". Which is what I did.

andy 20:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; the only problem is that it's not really nonsense per the criterion. I'm talking it over with DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who prodded it to see if a G3 wouldn't be more appropriate. — Coren ^(talk) 20:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, G3 for vandalism seems the solution. I should have thought of it myself. so I just now went and did it "per Coren and DGG" -- I see the user has done this sort of thing before, so I've left a level 4 warning. DGG (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was not an article per se and it was the first of several in that category. This was BOOK COVERS only in the Book Covers category. There are only book covers in there, I was in the process of putting together other Canadian small Press book publishers "Book Covers" in the only category for them. How is this similar to the naive first article I wrote 2 years ago when I first started out? If I organized all the McGraw Hill Book Covers into an article it would be the same wouldn't it?? Just book covers? WayneRay 12:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Coren: You may be interested that a user to whom you gave a "final warning" seems to have violated copyright policy yet again. By the way, thanks for your clever bot! --Coppertwig 19:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing something with this. Everyone else seemed not to be taking it seriously enough. I've emailed Jimbo with my concerns. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 19:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I've also emailed the Foundation with what happened. — Coren ^(talk) 20:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot left me a message regarding the similarities between the pages "Popples" and "Popples (TV series)". At the time, I was separating the information from the first page between the two pages (having just created the second one), to clarify the division between the toys and the cartoon series; naturally, the two pages looked close to identical before both of them were finished.

By now, the two should be different enough that no problem exists; if one does, please let me know. Thank you.

Wrightaway 20:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pls. review the article. I hope it is satisfactory in its current form. Thanks!Goodby, Mr. Chipz 23:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coren, I have tried reasoning/compromising with a very irate letsnotlie/Hillhealth with no luck and need your help. I'm actually the one who posted this for editor assistance yesterday.

It appears that letsnotlie and Hillhealth are the same person who keeps deleting select sections of the Joseph Schlessinger page, either not reporting or heavily censoring an a full report of the facts. (i.e. keeps deleting almost everything remotely perceived as negative even though the page is almost completely positive and anything which might be perceived as negative is all the way at the bottom). I've taken special care to use the words "alleged" and "claimed" and "the lawsuit stated" as much as possible, but that didn't seem to appease letsnotlie/hilhealth. The editing history speaks for itself.

What might work out best for this would be for someone higher up (you?) to just make a decision on what to include or not include based on the references from the source below, as they see fit. Editing out the entire section is not giving a full disclosure of the facts.

Yale Universitiy's own newspaper investigated, wrote and published a detailed article about this, which has been referenced in several places in the section below. I believe the following section is written very factually from MULTIPLE bona fide news sources. I am not quoting ANY blogs, as has been mentioned.

Quoting comments from the Joseph Schlessinger talk page "...Perhaps Garceau's people discovered that they have no case and settled without compensation."

The fact that letsnotlie/Hillhealth who posted above just happens to know settlement information that, as he wrote above, is nowhere in the media, is a good indicator that letsnotlie/Hillhealth are both Joseph Schlessinger himself.

I would be interested in commentary on the applicability of the text below and Joseph Schlessinger potentially self-editing his own page.

Thank you in advance for reviewing this.

At this point, looking into dispute resolution is your best avenue. Given that I have intervened with administrative action to stop the edit war, it would not be appropriate for me to participate in the actual content dispute. — Coren ^(talk) 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elided complete repost of BLP section— Coren ^(talk) Truther truther 23:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is neither useful nor necessary to repost the text of the article on my talk page. I am not involved in the edition of that article, nor am I interested in mediating. You way want to read the avenues for dispute resolution available to editors who find themselves in conflict over article contents. — Coren ^(talk) 23:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I copy text from my sandbox from userspace to mainspace, your bot gives me a warning. Please stop this from happening in the future, because it's annoying. Miranda 09:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, I have moved a page from Mannes College of Music to Mannes College The New School for Music to reflect its current official name, and I left a Redirect command on the old page. Hope that everything's okay now. Thanks. Objectivesea 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text is an edited version of that on our website. We felt we would increase knowledge of the band by adding the text within our website to Wikipedia. www.brettmarvin.co.uk

Please note that Wikipedia is not a proper venue for promotion. — Coren ^(talk) 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do we know if user:Vampire Warrior went through with his threat or not? I note he has been blocked, along with a sockpuppetry template. It would be much more polite of people if they could simply off-themselves quietly without concerning the entire wiki community. Cheers! --For Queen and Country 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we'll never know short of him returning. The police don't make a habit out of informing passing strangers about the results of their investigations.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thanks for your action and congratulations for getting it done promptly. You hit the ground running while I was still trying to figure out how to do what needed to be done; obviously you're someone anyone would want to have around in a crisis situation. I'll make this appreciation more tangible as soon as I figure out the best way to do it. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reception history of Jane Austen was simply posted from a draft. This is the second time this has happened to me. Isn't there a way to have the bot distinguish between wikipedia pages that have "draft" or "user" in the title? Awadewit | talk 10:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely anything in "User:" space could be a copy of a Wikipedia page without causing problems. The "/Sandbox/" path should also be a clue. Colin°^Talk 11:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the created page go? it was created 2 December and deleted 3 december? Blrochester 17:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Brian Rochester 3 December 2007.[reply]

Barnstar moved to the more modest "display case" on my user page.

Thank you. I'm not sure if I deserve to be "honored" for doing this, but I appreciate the sentiment. — Coren ^(talk) 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it seem funny that your bot would search wikipedia user pages when looking for copyvios? I can't very well copyvio myself. Murderbike 04:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

User:Vampire Warrior II. Thought you might be interested in seeing that. Metros 11:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Coren, good to see that he is alright. I'm sure having the police knocking at his door will ensure he won't make that mistake again. --For Queen and Country 18:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding insensitive, if claiming to having committed suicide isn't disruption enough to warrant a ban, I don't know what is. It's not as though this is a first offense - both User:Tyler Warren and User:Vampire Warrior have been blocked for pretty serious infractions and he was also permanently blocked by Angela (talk · contribs) at Wikia. Enough is enough. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot identified Roberts and Barrand#Discography as a copyright violation. Such a list cannot be copyrighted. —MJBurrage • TALK • 10:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But Şipotu River (Putna) and Şipotu River (Pleşcioara) are different rivers. Afil (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just joined my first WikiProject: Anthroponymy. I am in the process of doing my first edit in this regard, moving surnames out of the Woodson article and into a new article entitled Woodson (surname). If I misunderstood how to assist with the WikiProject, help! Thank you. Rosiestephenson (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, the bulk of her page came from her management profile. I have now recified this. Please remove it from speedy deletion. Celebhunter (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your bot has tagged Erich von Götha de la Rosière as a copy of http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Erich_Von_Gotha, however, it appears the site is a partial copy of Wikipedia, hence should be excluded from positive hits. 82.231.41.7 (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tags album article stubs as copyvios too often. I'm guessing it's because of the track listings.--SeizureDog (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Material was taken from Dicti0nary of american Naval Fighting Ships and is in the public domain Prof .Woodruff (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, you want to include the {{DANFS}} template in the article, which will properly attribute the source and get CSBot off your back as a bonus.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've just indefinitely blocked a legitimate user, using one of Durova and Guy's discredited reasons. You should reverse your actions and make a sincere apology Real Soon Now, and let's hope this doesn't blow up like other incidents have. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova took !! writing about Leck mich im Arsch to be "obscene trolling in German". I'm happy that the situation is resolved acceptably, but I'd still say the block was a bad idea. Nobody needs that much protection.

I'm looking at this in the large scale. I'm worried, in general, about there coming to be topics that everyone knows you can't edit or someone will end up blocking you for some reason. It sounds like pro wrestling is already that way, and apparently obscene Mozart songs are now the same. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I realize that I overreacted to this event. I understand that your block had a much different intent than the punitive blocks by other admins I was comparing it to, and the blocked user understands as well, so it's all good. Sorry for making a big deal out of it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Coren. I just undid a bot tag on Calvert (name) after I finished making a split of name article from dab page. I've done similar before and not run afoul of the copy vio bot check, but if I'm messing up some GFDL thing and there's a better way to effect the split, let me know. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info was certainly not taken from the alleged website. I extracted the info from two sites, Gaza District Towns-Palestine Remembered. Small Area Populations-Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics.

I acknowledged the sources immediately after I accidentally saved without adding them. I'm going to go ahead and remove the temp from the article page. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The bot confused my completed article with my User Sandbox, where I was building the artcle. Have removed the tag and the sandox is now blank. Heds (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fedeltapos (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, I refer to the user talk at User talk:206.126.19.10.

I have checked the guidelines and cannot find a reason as to why the link to http://fedeltapos.com would have been removed. My initial reaction was that the company name was different to the software name but other companies have followed this pattern and this is common in the software industry.

Could you please enlighten me as to the specific reason for removal or consider reinstating the edit?

Best regards,

Scott Buckham

I'm not sure what you are talking about; can you give me a link to the removal you discuss or tell me which article that was in? In general, however, inclusion of external links is guided by WP:EL; you might want to peruse that guideline. — Coren ^(talk) 03:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other domestic Vancouver clubs posted on Wiki including

capilano rfc and burnaby lake rfc

Someone deleted the Meraloma Athletic club. Why?

I am the author of the info at our website www.meraloma.com

and would like it posted at wiki...

why has it been removed?

Meraloma (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a question about the url. Could you reply over there (or here if you prefer)? Thanks. - Neparis (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot about that. 'tis there: [1]. — Coren ^(talk) 16:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Neparis (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user specifically said they did not wish to file an unblock request. Why would you do this first and tell me after instead of the other way around? Do you feel that me being compared to Hitler is such a small matter that you need to make it a point to, symbolically, lift a 24-hour protection with one hour left? (which has the effect of giving said user legitimacy) Why have you opted to treat me with so little consideration? El_C 19:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information is available from many sources. I did not use the noted website Prof .Woodruff (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of Gula Mons were copied from the caption NASA released with the image I placed on that page, which was included with the image over on commons (Image:Gula Mons 3D.jpg). Not sure how common this is, perhaps you might want to make your bot follow links to see if it can find the source closer to home. Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Yo! Your bot is tagging all of the pages I am creating on moth genera. This could be extremely troublesome as I am creating hundreds of them. Please find a way to have it stop. Thanks.--NielsenGW (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2] This is what I call an admin-worthy behavior. I was rather sad to see that my prediction to you on IRC actually came true, but it seems you have handled it very well.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Bot thought sentences were copied from a website. Removed tag. --Topspinslams (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Had JUST hit return on initial entry of article and had NO TIME whatsoever to make further edits. Please consider waiting maybe an entire 5 minutes or so next time. Thank you CyntWorkStuff (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to put material from a website that I have legal rights to edit and copy (I am the President of the corporation) but was prohibited by Coren to use the material. I'm not sure how to proceed. (Dec. 10, 2007)

Dmichaele (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about an email from NYCSYM@aol.com authorizing Wikipedia to use the copyrighted material? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here. I think my comment hardly qualifies as a taunt compared to that. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Peacekeeper (Farscape). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy. I am new to WIKIPEDIA.

I was for first time trying to edit a site to correct its terms and spell errors. The site " Mobile VoIP" on Wiki, is okay, but the term here used is wrong.

The Correct Term is " VoIp Mobile". You can do a major search on google and yahoo, and you will see that the term is used millions of times with various combinations, but the correct term which is mostly used by the different carriers is "Voip Mobile"

Perhaps i did not know that once could not copt the old page, swap the terms and make a new page. The CopyBot or whatever it is called said its a copy of Mobile VoIP site, so i could either link it to that, or delete it.

Well, non is needed. All what is needed is to change the terms on the original site to the correct therms. If anyone would like any kind of information, please contact me at doctor_ray@hotmail.com

How do i solve this? Can i get some help in doing this?

Best Regards Ray —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voipmobile (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the title of the article I'm trying to correct is "The First Christmas: The Story of the First Christmas Snow" as it is the actual on screen title of the Rankin Bass special. I think it is kind of fair to the original producers that it be corrected that way, and I re direct the existing article to the new one. Hiphats (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

This was tagged as copyright violation but no text was copied- i used the track listing from http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/~hayward/van/discography/primadonna.html as a guide but retyped it.

• Agadant (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Coren

I am George T. Haber and my bio is used by other  website when I am presenting at Conferences or give speeches. please see my Linked in profile or better yet by bio on the www.CrestaTech.com website.
I would like to have my bio on Wikipedia as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvdzen (talk • contribs) 05:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

hi!

I'm an author of a program similar to CorenBot that looks for material that too closely resembles that which is already available on the web (though from the point of academic papers). Google has in its TOS 'no automated searches', so I've not used it. You appear to have switched from Google to Yahoo. Was this in result to this kind of issue? If so, are automated searches OK on Yahoo? Did you need to get explicit permission? Any info you can provide would be appreciated. LouScheffer (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically. I'm still hopeful I'll eventually manage to find the right person at Google to okay the use, but in the meantime I use Yahoo's published search API which allows some automated searches in specific cases. You might want to look into that. — Coren ^(talk) 23:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the material. Can I remove the message. Nice template for it by the way. --HPJoker (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our wiki page was said to have copied material from some website, but that website actually took info from our page www.marble-institute.com. Please restore our wiki page. Thanks MIA Staff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdistelhorst (talk • contribs) 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you add http://doom.wikia.com to the whitelist for your bot please ? Thanks Jackaranga (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Coren ^(talk) 23:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is with regard to this message by the bot [3]. If I understand correctly, these two related databases are in Public domain - free to copy. We also have a letter from the database developer at the Molecular Biology portal who authorized us to use it: [4]. Thank you. Biophys (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, can I copy some of the Pfam content, as has been allowed by the database author, Alex Bateman at MCB page [5]? You can find his name (Author: Alex Batemen) at the bottom of Pfam mirror page detected by your bot [6]. Biophys (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got this message again, and old version of one article has been deleted. Not only author gave his permission - see his letter here [7]. but "this database is free; you can redistribute it and/or modify it" [8]Biophys (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's public domain alright. I didn't delete any of this, however. If you point me at a specific article, I'll see what I can do. — Coren ^(talk) 15:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! This is very easy for me to restore. So, I hope everything is settled.Biophys (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the messages continue to appear.Biophys (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just one more mirror of Pfam at [9]. There are quite a few of them.Biophys (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is SMART. SMART takes some annotations from the same open source: Pfam/InterPro, [10]. These open-source annotations are used everywhere.Biophys (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the links to be ignored by your bot are the following: http://pfam.janelia.org/ and http://smart.embl-heidelberg.de/smart/. (the messages are here). These sites are using Pfam/Interpro annotations.Biophys (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the large number of mirrors, the best thing we can do is for you to create an attribution template (Take a look at Template:1911 for instance) and teach CSBot about it. — Coren ^(talk) 19:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made such template a couple of days ago. This is "Template:InterPro content":

This article incorporates text from the public domain Pfam and InterPro: IPR008138

. But I do not know how to teach CsBot about it. Could you help please? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's something only I can do, and indeed, it is  Done. — Coren ^(talk) 03:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Now I hope this is finally solved.Biophys (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was automatically deleted by you for being a duplicate. However the criticisms of the original article have been addressed (references etc) and some of the discussion concerning the scale of the paper in the previous deletion review is not accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathancherry (talk • contribs) 16:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be brought to deletion review, then. — Coren ^(talk) 16:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Deletion Review --Jonathancherry (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We were hoping to get your input on the sexual harassment section for Joseph Schlessinger. hillhealth and I agree on which sources are appropriate to use and are *pretty close* to reaching consensus on what the wording should be. We have decided to default to the administrator's decision making abilities for the final wording. Both versions may be found at the very bottom of the discussion of the joseph schlessinger page. Whatever you decide, please lock your version into place to prevent vandalism. We're asking DDG for his input too. Thanks! Truther truther (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, I've taken a look--perhaps you could too and we can finish this.DGG (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Grand Prix Final as a copyvio of http://www.goldenskate.com/articles/2007/gpf_preview.shtml? The full text of the disambig page I created:

The 2007 Grand Prix Final may refer to:

2006-2007 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final, which took place in December 2006, and is officially the "2007 Grand Prix Final"

2007-2008 Grand Prix of Figure Skating Final, which took place in December 2007, and is officially the "2008 Grand Prix Final"

Whereas the GoldenSkate article is a preview of the second competition. Your bot's pretty eager to get a hit from that. Kolindigo (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a disambiguation page for the phrase; moved other pages accordingly. Your robot caused some extra work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidGGG (talk • contribs) 08:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got an automatic notification that added a link thingy to a page I had edited. I moved the contents to a page with a more accurate name -- the less than correct name had ignited some petty editing changes -- and changed the formed page to a re-directing one. Hope this is all right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showjumpersam (talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got an automatic notification from CorenSearchBot that the text for Pies and Guys is similar to that of Half-Wits Holiday. Makes sense since the former film is remake of the latter. I wrote the text to Half-Wits Holiday anyway, so I am essentially copying from myself. Thanx, though. I have removed the CorenSearchBot tag from Pies and Guys. Oanabay04 (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I have requested more information from you at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 16#2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season. DoubleBlue (Talk) 12:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that what the bot found was something small and simple like 'Nephew by marriage of Willis Alston.', I wasn't aware that something like that would violate any rules. However, if it does I can change it at any time. packerfansam (talk) 17 December 2007

It doesn't. CSBot is useful, but quite dumb and sometimes gets a bit overzealous. That's why I removed the tag. — Coren ^(talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem, different page. I might try rewording things to avoid this problem. packerfansam (talk) 17 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 22:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

The article in question was edited by you which removed the speedy deletion tag that argued that the article was for the purposes of spam/advertisment. I would like to kindly ask what you mean by "Probably better to bring to AfD to avoid systemic bias". What does AfD mean?

The article was tagged for spam/advertisement for the reasons indicated in that page's discussion which I opened up to explain my rationale for that move. Since you probably didn't read that first before making a move, I have copy and pasted the following for your convenience:

"Aeja1370 along with other IPs at his disposal has been consistently reviving this exact article back from what could've been dead. If speedy deletion tags are added, they are removed by him/her or any number of his sockpuppet accounts.

I have previously flagged this article for speedy deletion and now I've decided to flag it for spamming/advertisement. A simple Google search will reveal that none of the important details that distinctively indicate that the person in this article exist; no such person on Google with that name with that birthyear and place WHO has written a book titled "Sakyeng Mingsenda (The Mirror) in 2004. In fact, there's absolutely NO indication that such a person even exists despite the fact that the original author(s) claim he is "dearer to the literary world". It seems important for the author that this article be kept alive for no known exterior reason for a "famous" person who cannot be found on a quick Google search. If one had time, they will conclusively argue that this article could be intended to make a mockery out of Wikipedia.

I have written some notes to whom I believe are administrators but they have done nothing about it as of yet.

AWDRacer (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Though I am assuming good faith, removing the spam tag I argue only hinders the efficiency of the deletion policy of Wikipedia. This article should not be alive at all, and it baffles me that it has been alive for a long period of time. I had previously placed deletion tags on the article, only to have it removed by the original author for the sake of his or her's article's survival. I have discussed this problem on his previous versions of the article - only to have it deleted along with that article and soon later, a "new version" of the article reappears without the discussion page which points out all my suspicions. It is an attempt by the author to suppress information which would lead to him as posting a fake article.

I had written to W. Marsh about it and it appears that the comment was lost so I have re-typed another comment for him to look at. If you think the deletion tag for spam is not suitable, please replace another one which you feel is most appropriate. A deletion tag IS necessary so removing mine from it, in my opinion, was not the right thing to do, though I appreciate your effort and sincerity.

Thank you.

AWDRacer (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AdD means articles for deletion, the proper place to bring articles which you feel need to be deleted but whose deletion isn't clear cut or uncontroversial. My statement about "systemic bias" is just that: it's easy to discount the notability of artists or personalities that live outside the areas better covered by Internet— in such cases it is generally better to let the community look at the article and see if it can be salvaged before deletion. Since you seem to be unfamiliar with the process, I will list the article on AfD on your behalf. — Coren ^(talk) 23:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You havent closed the discussion properly. Use {{RFCNtop}} and {{RFCNbottom}}, please. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your message here[11]. Since User:Danaullman was indeffed, there has been a steady stream of single purpose accounts that show up to "improve" Mr. Ullman's biographical article. It has not risen to the level that I would think requires page protection, but it is irritating nonetheless and may factor into your decision to unblock. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the owner of JMDCMS open source cms system and jmdcms.com. I would like to include jmdcms information in wikipedia.

I think, I am providing the genuine information.

Please suggest!!

Handaajay15 (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

admin@jmdcms.com

I'm just starting up a page. I read a date and wrote two sentences. Where did I copy from an article?Knillis (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot picked up the draft article for Cornelius Shea in my sandbox. When I moved the draft article over to a "new article" page, your bot tagged the new article as "duplicative content." Hopefully, your bot can be improved to not search sandboxes, so avoid such errors in the future. You've got an interesting bot, though. - Tim1965 (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

re It just occurred to me that you might prefer an explanatory note on your former user page rather than a straight up redirect? — Coren ^(talk) 06:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for dealing with this - and pleased to meet you. I think some sort of note and soft-redirect would be better. Maybe there's a standard template for this... I'm quite surprised to find that the old name was able to be resurrected. I would think this would by automatically prevented. FYI, see the recent edits to Tampaksiring which this user prompted me to add refs to. --Jack Merridew 07:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again. --Jack Merridew 07:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. I still have a concern. Special:Contributions/Senang Hati were edits made by the impersonator, not me, but who's to know that down the road? On the other hand, not to many people will ever look! --Jack Merridew 07:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's back as Special:Contributions/71.212.42.88 - and I reverted him. --Jack Merridew 09:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/71.108.64.236, too. --Jack Merridew 09:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:F uckBot Mk. 1 was hard-blocked. The user was specifically requesting unblock because s/he can't create a new account. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

[www.rxwiki.com] is a mirror of Wikipedia's articles about drugs and pharmacology. Please add this to CorenSearchBot's list. I got the message about the article isopropamide, which I created following the creation of a redirect on isopropamide iodide, as per WikiProject Pharmacology naming guidelines. Thanks. Fuzzform (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but the site claims "© 2007 Mirixa Corporation", which means I cannot whitelist it. In fact, it does appear as though that site is violating Wikipedia's copyrights by illegally copying articles without the attributions and relicensing mandated by the GFDL. — Coren ^(talk) 02:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was the orginal creator of the article on Conservapedia (under the username Tash).--SNSAnchor (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the article on the London Accord has been deleted three times now. Most administrators when seeing the rebirth of an article that has been deleted three times will (undertandably) automatically re-delete it without looking at it.

I am writing to request you not to do this, as I honestly believe that the reasons given have been addressed now.

I have recreated the article at User:Mike Young/LondonAccord. I have expanded it and added other stuff to make a useful article which cannot resonably claim to be copy vio (remember the London Accord website is open source). I see no reason why the article in its present form should be deleted. However you may. Please feel free to comment on the article on it's talk page, or even better to help me improve it by editing it into a form which you will find acceptable as an article. This is a much more sensible course of action than engaging in a deletion war. I would appreciate a "Yes this is OK" on the talk page if you think this is not an article that warrants a speedy delete.

Thank you very much in anticipation for your time. Mike Young (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's actualy a number of problems with the article, but I don't think any of them are unsurmountable:

• The copyright status of any text taken from the website is problematic, since they do not give an explicit permission to copy or the terms by which copies can be made anywhere on the site that I could find. While there might have been an open-source-like development for the reports, they take the time to specify that "No part of these Reports or any of them may be reproduced without the written permission of the Authors [...]". This means you cannot reuse any text from the web site unless it's an obvious quotation and properly attributed.
• The sources are mostly all from the London Accord website itself or press releases on the City of London website (one of the primary instigators of the London Accord), and are therefore not independent enough to establish notability. You almost certainly will need more citations from independent, reliable source if you want to make certain notability is sufficiently established to avoid an AfD.

At any rate, the article appears to establish importance sufficiently to avoid a speedy deletion, at least. I don't expect those problems to be show stoppers. — Coren ^(talk) 02:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have recived written permission to copy from one of the project directors and verbal permission and encouragement from the other (I talked about it at the meeting in the Mansion House, which I attended). They are also the authors of some of the papers. Mike Young (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, this needs to be formalized since the source website still claims the opposite. This will probably require modification to the website, or at the very least an email to the foundation as explained in the guideline for requesting permission to copy. — Coren ^(talk) 02:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying here to try and keep this centralised (sorry Coren) The copyright thing is precisely the problem. Mike, your repeated assertion that the text is open source is totally academic, and I wish you'd realise this. You have two options. 1) Get your webmaster to implicitly state on the site that all text is relased under the GFDL 2) Follow the route suggested by Coren above at WP:COPYREQ. Until then please do not post the article back in the main space as it stands - the opening paragraph alone is enough to get it deleted on the grounds of WP:CSD#G12 A further note - there is no "deletion war" going on - you have repeatedly inserted material that administrators can only view as copyrighted and thus it has been deleted. Other than this issue I think the article stands allthough I'd prefer some more citations that's no big deal. Pedro :  Chat  08:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You recently closed a deletion proposal on the article Diefenbaker (wolf). The result was Merge/Redirect. The information from the original page does not appear on the page the article has been redirected to. You made some comment about this when you closed the deletion proposal, but unfortunately I do not understand it. I would like to see the original information appropriately preserved. Please could you explain to me the situation regarding the merge. GalaxyHound (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was simply turned into a redirect (as oppose to deleted), you can still retreive the contents by going to the history tab here. Pick a revision (clicking on a date) and you'll get the article as it existed at that revision; you can then take information you find there and integrate it into Due South. — Coren ^(talk) 13:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot wrote me a message telling me that the page was copied. In fact, I had cut'n'pasted it from the Duh Wikipedia article, of which the page referred to in the link is a mirror. --Army1987 (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, im working on the list of executive orders and the bot you oversee keeps flagging my archival work as plagurisim. Its not because all copied text is the work of a US government employee. If you could get it to stop flagging my articles, that would rock. Thanks Basejumper123 (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The bot was confused. Kitty53 (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your bot wasn't confused, about my article on Bartell LaRue. Good call, I was being lazy and have amended the article as per the template request, thanks Alastairward (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i just posted an article from my sandbox which i have been working on for a while, as i do with most articles, and your bot gave me the evil message of doom and such (A message of copying text). Is there anyway of stopping this in the future? Cheers Kare Kare (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See? Here's the evidence. You and I are both working the patrol this afternoon... so we must be conspiring together against people we don't like. I can't recall... have we even met before today? I've admired the work of your copyvio bot, of course, like everyone, but I don't recall having really crossed paths before. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we must have crossed paths before since your talk page is on my watchlist for some reason, but it has to have been some time ago since I don't remember what it was about.  :-) But hush, we can't let proof of the Cabal slip, now, can we? — Coren ^(talk) 18:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The faith-healer was nice enough to dig it up for us; apparently you favored unblocking for some newbie I had blocked, once upon a time, and you were touching base with me before undoing my block, which was thoughtful of you. Not exactly the stuff that conspiracies are built on, but maybe it was a coded message. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys! Can I join too?! I'm apparently liberal minded like yourselves and probably a bigot too. Wait...I thought liberals loved all types of people and conservatives were bigots...oh well...to the cabal! Metros (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry— party's over. Third {{unblock}} in a row won a nice talk page protection for the next 30 hours for our victimized friend. Wagers on how long before a sock or an anon starts complaining on one of our talk pages or on AN/I?  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 18:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Brother John's guidance in releasing my black spirit would fix this runny nose that's been bothering me? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My article got a warning that it may be deleted but I am not doing any copyright ingringement. Please do not delete.

Article: Prestige Comedians, Inc.

Thank you

Reynald —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corporate comedian (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ther eis a warning that the Tony Incenzo interview might be deleted but I am the author of the article and you have full permission to use it.

it tagged me when I added eintopf with a lot of content from wikicookbook, but that is ok, right? so please add wikibooks to your list. cheers

Nesnad (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coren, I'm trying to insert some info on Oscar Marchisio. It seems to be some problems. I work also on website www.oscarmarchisio.it Please can you fix that so can Oscar Marchisio can be on wikipedia? Sincerely your Csk Il Provinciale.net

OK,

I didn't report User:Monosex

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 18:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just created 1519 in science, but it was incorrectly tagged by your bot to be a copyvio of [12], which is a wiki mirror. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I just created Falling Sand (game), but it was incorrectly by your bot to be a copyvio of [13].This is a very urgent issue,PLEASE solve it as soon as possible.Paul 1953 (talk) 14:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I got the info from IMDb (but could easily have gotten it from TCM) and nothing in the stub is protected by any copyright as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My initialing Wikipedia entry for the Hegel Society of America (HSA) had an excerpt from the HSA home page. As a member of the HSA my usage was called for. Nevertheless, I changed the wording so that the excerpt no longer matches the HSA home page. Petrejo (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted

I've created {{DoD-mildict}} for new articles sourced from the U.S. Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (See User:The Anome/U.S. Military Dictionary terms). There are lots of copies of all the entries from this on the web, so any article from this will trigger your bot with a fals-positive. Could you please add this tag to your list of approved public domain tags, or, if you've now made this admin-configurable, point me to the editable whitelist page? -- The Anome (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coren...

Just posted an article about Log Cabin Village (a living history museum in Fort Worth, TX). I work there and borrowed heavily from our web site content for the article. We own the copyright to the information and would like to use it on Wikipedia as well since it is an excellent summary. What else do I need to do to ensure that it doesn't get deleted?

Thanks... Rena Lawrence, Museum Educator Log Cabin Village Renalawrence (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being the author of the above noted article,I welcome you to verify the same.Did you ever interested to visit the north eastern state of India Like Manipur where many intellectuals are born. PLZ collect information about Manipuri Literature which will enlighten you more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.110.104.15 (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just a note to say that I've left a comment here regarding the above user. Sorry again for any confusion, it's my bad. – Steel 15:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Dear coren , the drsaiya blog spot has been created by me and linked to show energymedicine.in

Dr.Amit K Saiya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsaiya (talk • contribs) 15:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted using quotes from their website and acknowledged. Should be OK.Mccready (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new page with only this phrase to redirect people to "A land without a people for a people without a land"

your automated program notes, correctly, that the phrase "a land without people for..." appears on many other web pages.

That , of course, was the point of the exercise. To redirect people looking in Wikipedia for information about a widely mis-cited slogan to a page that has informatin about the correct wording of said slogan.

American Clio (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)American Clio Dec. 26,2007[reply]

The bot found a new entry on explanans, which, in the philosophy of science, is a description of an explanation of a phenomenon. I created it by derivation from its sister concept, explanandum, which is the phenomenon to be explained. Thus the similarity, at least at first edit, was intentional but not, in my view, in appropriate, since the concepts are co-joined, and derived from the same source material. Cshirky (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Ron Paul Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Paul_Revolution#Ron_Paul_Revolution

If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page. Thank you.--Duchamps comb (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Pantun Sunda, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://members.tripod.com/pasundan/musiccianjur.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hadiyana"

I created http://members.tripod.com/pasundan/musiccianjur.htm and now dedicated the content for wikipedia.

Thank you.--Hadiyana (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you now whitelist the {{NCI-cancer-dict}} tag? Your bot is still producing false positives for these articles: see [14] for an example. -- The Anome (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]