User talk:Coren/Archives/2010/May

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Coren. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Great Globe, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mulberrycottages.com/things-to-do/dorset. 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) 20:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

(???) okay this is a note --Huligan0 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Re Mortimer Sackler - I deleted Search Bot note:- article incorporates basic facts from Obituary at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/finance-obituaries/7640197/Dr-Mortimer-Sackler.html and other Obits but is not otherwise copyright violation in my view. Is awaiting further inline refs. --Mervyn (talk) 08:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Your bot generated a false positive on an article I created. It wasn't even close to being copyright--your bot cited a page about stock quotes, when the page is about baseball statistics. I am removing it. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm. CSBot wasn't really designed to work well with pagefulls of numbers; they are thankfully rare enough that I don't expect such mismatches to be frequent. — Coren ^(talk) 10:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Coren:

Please try to check Cadence Spalding. CSBot said it contains copied text, but I am sure I did not copy anything, I wrote all by myself! Well, I understand the bot could 'felt' that that was a copy, but please let me know what you consider about this situation. Then I will try to do something, I do not know, write it using other words?

Please do not forget to remove the template if you consider that!

I thank you in advance.

--Gonzaloluengo (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That's two that the bot got wrong in a few hours. It probably needs tweaking Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Trails blazed)} 04:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In that way, I am going to remove the template. But please Coren, remember to let us know if everything is right, OK? Regards, --Gonzaloluengo (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a "normal" false positive, as it were. Short-ish biographies (especially of musicians) tend to often raise flags because they usually repeat the same contents no matter how they were written with stretches of low-probability text repeating: discographies and track listings in particular tend to be very distinctive and look very much like each other and there aren't that many ways to write them out. Because the bot can't possibly know that the text was repeated verbatim because they are titles, we get this occasional faux match.

It's nothing to worry about though: this is why every tag the bot places is reviewed by humans. — Coren ^(talk) 10:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Coren!--Gonzaloluengo (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You've got mail. Please give me a ping. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Comme je ne peux pas vous écrire sur la wikipédia anglaise, et en plus je préfère le français, je vous écris ici.

Je suis accusé d'utiliser des Sockpuppets, et l’équipe anglaise a bloqué trois comptes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ZHU_Yeyi/Archive

Je travaille actuellement dans un hôpital universitaire de Lyon. 83.145.72.70 ce numéro est l'adresse IP de cet hôpital. Ce n’est pas un Proxy . Vous pouvez vérifier.

Il s'agit du compte d'une collègue. ( Comme c'est un nouveau compte, ça marche sur l'édition anglaise, mais elle n'y est pas encore allée.) Je l'ai aidé pour la création de son premier article. Elle participe que sur la Wikipédia française. Comme elle ne participe pas sur les autres Wikipédia, j'ai crée un lien interlinguistique sur le Wikipédia anglaise.

Pour l'autre compte il s'agit d'un copain, qui est récemment rentré en Chine. Un étudiant d'une Université en Chine. 218.104.71.166 est une des adresses IP de cette université. Il a participé à ce débat, car nous avons une bonne relation, il a invalidé son vote de lui même, vous pouvez vérifier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Rjanag/Latin_phonetic_method_of_Shanghainese&diff=352911205&oldid=352879161

Alors, il n'est pas mon Sockpuppet, n'a perturbé en aucune façon le fonctionnement de la Wikipédia.

Pour ces deux personnes, si ils veulent participer à la wikipédia anglaise, ils seront obligés de créer un compte à nouveau, cela fait des Sockpuppets.

Après réflexion, je vous demande de débloquer ses comptes, ou alors veuillez m'indiquer la marche à suivre pour que je puisse le faire moi-même.

Cordialement.

Le message vient de la wikipédia française.

--ZHU Yeyi (d) 4 avril 2010 à 10:41 (CEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.72.66 (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

(I'm not familiar with OTRS procedures, so I hope it's OK to send this to you. I found you in the list at OTRS personnel.)

The image File:Lennon&mccartney.png appears questionable as a PD upload, because a high quality popular culture image from the era is very rare. To include it in articles, we would need to be 100% sure it is free. Your comments on whether the image status is verifiable would be welcome. PL290 (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right that it is a little dubious, but the image is on the Commons, and they have their own verification procedure there with which I am not very familiar. You might want to ask Durova who is quite the expert at images and, I believe, an admin over there. That's not really an OTRS matter, though, since the permissions handling there works the other way around— we reply to incoming permission grants, we almost never originate permission requests. — Coren ^(talk) 10:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. It is almost certainly a photograph by Linda McCartney. The deletion debate is listed at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lennon&mccartney.png. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Moonriddengirl! I thought you didn't do images?  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 13:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm expanding. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both. Shame it seems it's not a valid PD so can't be used. Clearly does seem to be a copyvio. Impressive detective work. PL290 (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

So while working today I noticed this entry which resulted in a link to Article instead of the appropriate link to Dawacada iyo yaxaaska = De Mongu Edizion. I can't imagine it comes up very ofen, but (should you feel like it) changing the entry from {{La|Foo}} to {{La|1=Foo}} solves the problem. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't remember it ever happening before, but that was just blind luck. Will fix next chance I get. — Coren ^(talk) 17:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Coren,

Hi, I notice you have OK'd the deletion of the image of the Zwillinge Stamp at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_April_22#2010_April_9. If you are not to busy could you explain how this deletion maps onto our policies which seem to me to indicate that it would be OK to use it to illustrate this Zwillinge_(Locomotives)#The_Stamp_and_Post_Mark.

- Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject

- Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

I think you mistake DRV for a new AfD; the close is evaluated there and not the rationale for the original decision — and the close was well within policy. That being said, it seems clear to me that the original close was also valid on merit: if the stamp had an article, then using an image of it to identify it would have been defensible; but using the stamp because its art was relevant to the topic of the article is clearly not within the narrow exemption; nor does it significantly increase the reader's understanding of the locomotive. — Coren ^(talk) 23:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I had hoped to contest whether the original closure accurately reflected the debate and I thought I had added sufficient extra information to the section on the stamp to provide sufficient context.

The original debate included the argument that "The stamp's existence and its purpose are already perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image and does not increase the reader's understanding of the article." Here the modfication to policy that was made was the replacement of "topic" with "article". This seemed to me a tightening of policy.

The only other contributer suggesting delete said that the image would be "necessary for comprehension". This also seemed to me a tightening of policy.

It still seems to me that the image's presence significantly increased readers' understanding of the topic of the section 'Zwillinge (Locomotives)#The Stamp' and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. So it seems to me it passes WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8.

"increasing readers understanding" and "omission being detrimetental" to the topic seem to me key phrases in our policy at the moment.

The stamp image was being used to allow a reader of the section on the stamp to identify the stamp but... . I think I am not alone in thinking that the interpretation of our unclear policy is a bit harsh. It seems we have a policy which is being implemented that you cannot use a non-free stamp image to identify a stamp unless the stamp is itself notable enough for an article.

This policy does not seem to me to have been agreed and the doubts about interpretation have not been adressed.

Your interpretation seems similar to theirs "nor does it significantly increase the reader's understanding of the locomotive." My understanding is that the "topic" is the topic of the section - the stamp and that it does significantly increase the reader's understanding of the stamp.

I think the policy might be to changed to say "article" - or "main topic of the article" if you wish to have the interpretation you wish and to be able to quote it in the way that has been done in this debate - that is as if it is unambiguous and those arguing for the broader interpretation are just stupid and can't read policy.

Anyway thanks and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC))

Perhaps you are correct that it may be unclear. At any rate, you have to remember that NFCC is always to be construed narrowly: they are limited exceptions to the basic idea of a free encyclopedia, and to be used as little as possible. — Coren ^(talk) 10:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Please turn off your bot. I already deleted it's notice. Bwmoll3 (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Coren. I've attempted to get consensus to unblock Tan here. Could you let me know if your block was simply reinstating the block of prodego, thereby making it reviewable, or was it an Arbtration Committee block? Obviously, I'm not going to touch it if it's the latter, hence why I'd like a quick clarification. :-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• A reasoned decision by the community trumps an emergency arbcom motion, so irrespective of Coren's response here the result of the ANI thread should be implemented unless circumstances radically change. AGK 12:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

My block was a simple reinstatement of the original block to return to status quo, and not an endorsement of the previous block or a new ArbCom block. — Coren ^(talk) 14:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

But your block was indefinite, and you noted your contacting of Arbcom. That's not status quo. Aiken ♫ 14:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You've stopped reading the log a bit too early: there was an indefinite block for about 15 minutes while AbrCom figured out what to do, then the original block of 31 hours was reinstated. There was no reason why that block could not be undone (as it was) either by community discussion or the usual unblock request — ArbCom's involvement starts and ends with the wheel warring. — Coren ^(talk) 14:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a little note from (Msrasnw (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)) (we meet again!) I got a message saying that Vela Velupillai appeared to include a substantial copy of http://www.buy.com/prod/adventures-in-nonlinear-dynamics/q/loc/106/202853918.html. It asked me to write here if I thought there was an error. I don't think it is a copy and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. Someone else has removed the awful tag - but not the badge of shame from my page! I seem to be collecting them, and keep getting in other trouble (like with my little picture of the Zwillinge stamp you kept deleted) and I do not think I am doing anything wrong. I think in this case it was one of the refs that caused the problem. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

Actually, it's the bibliography that did it; it's a long string of definitely non-random text copied verbatim (as is unavoidable). The bot can't know whether text is legitimately the same, only point out when thy look "too much" alike; hence the human review.

You can, by the way, remove old notices from your talk page — they are there for your benefit. — Coren ^(talk) 19:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The bot just left a message on my talk page, saying the 1963 Scotch Cup was a substantial copy of [1], which the site can't even find the page, I see above another problem has occurred like this one, so I thought I'd let you know so hopefully you look into it. Afro (Blah Blah Here) ^{- Afkatk} 15:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it existed when the bot fetched it, but given that your article is mostly a list of countries and numbers, it probably wasn't a very useful match anyways. — Coren ^(talk) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the works bit. The bot is right.I'd intended to complete these refs with the proper layout (journal titles etc) in the meantime I've deleted them.Il do this asap all the best Robert Notafly (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The Christ’s Restoration Ministries is a Christian charity dedicated to caring for disadvantaged, destitute and suffering children, young people and their families. "CRM" aims to rescue and restore young lives broken by poverty, oppression, exclusion, abused and to provide appropriate opportunities for a better future. A civil war destroyed the nation (Liberia) and thousands of children are orphaned and living on the streets without support, supervision or schooling. We work to restore hope and well-being for some of these, being essential for the future of the nation. Volunteers with skills for child care are welcomed. We greatly need your humanitarian assistant with childcare support (Sponsorship of the Children) in providing of: Food, Clothing, Medical care, shelter, Education and Christian training to the fatherless.

Please note that I am the sole administrator for Christ's Restoration Ministries (Liberia) where the information was copied and pasted on this web. Here's my contact: pastorsuah@ministries.com ©© —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suah2020 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Coren,

Quit being smarter than me. Earlier today, User:AlexandrDmitri and I had to look up elided, and now I had to check elision. Please stop. The subsequent gain in my scrabble game is not nearly offset by the mental anguish.

Most insincerely,

~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This show brought to you by the letter E! — Coren ^(talk) 10:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I received false positive copyvios on (5566) 1991 VY3 and (5834) 1992 SZ14. Reverted and noted on talk pages. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 07:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Under the heading ==The Plot==, the potentially infringing content has been deleted and will be replaced shortly with original or adequately cited material. Thank you.

Lenny Phillips (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC) user name: LennyPhillips 5/7/10

Hello

ive recieved a message stating that my subission cannot be accepted as its copyright . However... its not copyright , as its public domain , and we have bother made reference to the same public domain article. it can still be edited , and fine tuned, but i dont believe there are grounds to disallow the submission adn feel that this has been done in error , as its by an automate prociedure. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moutray2010 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi

again , having problems , when quoting from a public domain source, its coming up as a conflict with another website that quotes from the same public domain source. it shoudlnt preclude me form quoting from the public domain source aswell .

can you please review this ? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moutray2010 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If you could specifically cite which public domain sources you are using that would be helpful. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The text is not copyrighted material, as I was basically giving the brief history of Integra Bank before it was bought by National City Corp. and the subsequent history afterwards. If there are similarities, it is a coincidence. Jgera5 (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So in a recent tagging (sometime this week), CSBot hit one that was tagged with {{Cite Appletons'}}, which is a public domain source. Now there is the related {{Appletons}}, which presumably you already have, but both of them (in general) add the page to the same category, Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Appleton's Cyclopedia. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had {{Appletons}} but not the cite version. Added. — Coren ^(talk) 18:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I am very surprised that you closed the TfD for this template mas "delete" when there was so clearly no consensus to delete the template. I was considering taking this to deletion review, however, on that page it stated that it may be best to first discuss with the deleting admin. Please reconsider your decision to delete that template, as it is flawed. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you respond on this page, please leave me a {{talkback}} template on my user talk page. Thank you. Immunize (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Why has there been no response? Should I take this directly review? Immunize (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You should consider waiting more than about 2 hours. Aiken ♫ 14:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Coren's close seemed to be the right one. Read his closure statement and ask yourself if you can disagree with anything therein. AGK 15:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I do disagree with it. See my rationale on the debate. We should not make things difficult for people. Aiken ♫ 15:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a big mistake in the arguments which went un-noted. The statement that the template is used on 65,000 articles. It is not: it is used on at most 18000 articles as an "Expand" tag. This might include articles where several, most or all sections would need an "expand section" tag, or articles without sections. The need for the template is such that it was invented several times under different names. Since the categories "article with sections needing expanding" have been merged to the categories "Articles to be expanded" accurate measurement of the progress of the "expand" categories is muddied, but to proceed on the basis that something is not useful, without gathering data seems unwise.

In the meanwhile I have hidden the tag, except where it is used with a section parameter. Rich Farmbrough, 03:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC).

Note: Between November and March, 2,130 articles with the expand tag had it removed. Checking a random one it was substantially expanded, and had been small for a long time. Of course this doesn't mean the {Expand} tag was responsible, but it does mean that the belief that things just get tagged and stay tagged forever is wrong. We also have some information from the progress box (see right) that shows all expand articles form all the expand templates. The general indication is that the older cohorts have less articles in them. Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC).

I have no opinion on that; I evaluated the discussion and closed accordingly, I certainly did not do any statistical evaluation of currently tagged articles. (sidebar removed) — Coren ^(talk) 19:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have requested review of your decision to delete this template at deletion review. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Coren, I was not suggesting you should have, simply adding more information, and correcting mistakes that were in the arguments supporting deletion. It is normal to bring problems with closes to the closing admin, rather than DRV. Rich Farmbrough, 21:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC).

Concerning your entry that points out some of the verbiage on World Net Enterprises' Wikipedia page is similar to verbiage found on www.defenseproducts101.com, World Net Enterprises built, owns and operates www.defenseproducts101.com. It is highly likely the verbiage is similar, being the verbiage found on www.defenseproducts101.com is simply relaying information about the owner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finley500 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I just registered an account after doing IP contributions and noticed that this guy has a gigantic talk page. I noticed that several users have asked him to archive it as its taking forever to load and there's no point in having five years of comments on your talk page. I set up automatic archiving for him thinking that he probably didn't know how to do it himself and left him a message letting him know I had taken care of it for him. He quickly removed it and my comment without explanation. I left him a message asking him why and he ignored it. Could you talk to him? Maybe if an admin explains to him that it's just asinine to ignore logic without explaining why, then he'll put it back on. I would take it to RfC but I don't know if anyone will endorse that they asked him to archive. KobaltKrystal (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made the required changes, as it was considered for deletion. The earlier article was taken from our own website, but since it was considered as Copy Right violation, we have made the changes.. Hence requesting to remove the warning from the article.. Thank you...

--Zacerp (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The said webpage was a primary source for the article, but no part of the text was blind copied, except for the Military Awards section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandavo88 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not copy any text from the page http://www.cs.umb.edu/~naveenr/ChandraNotes.html. The text uses the term "Amateur X-ray astronomy" and that's it for real similarity. I also tried the link to the Chandra workshop dated November 5-7 (no year specified) http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/workshop.html and read the folowing: "We are sorry. The page you were looking for does not exist. Please check that you have entered the URL correctly." No copyright violation has occurred! Marshallsumter (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The text and picture is my personal property, as great grandson of Alfredo Jahn Hartman. I have added text on the page indicating that. If I haven't done so correctly, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredojahn (talk • contribs) 02:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to add the text to the source page, not the article, or send an email as described in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've sent email. But just for future reference, what type of text would I add to the source page? Alfredo (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What you added to the article works fine: "The text of this page, is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." or maybe "The text and image on this page ..." if you want the image to be usable too. Something like that. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I add this information in "comment" form on the page? Will the bots find the text embedded in html comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredojahn (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

When will the copyright stuff be removed from my page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredojahn (talk • contribs) 18:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The notice on your page is for your own benefit; you can remove it whenever you like. By the way, you can (and should) sign your posts on talk pages simply by adding four tildes (~~~~) at its end. — Coren ^(talk) 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Your bot tagged my article Polygenis gwyni as a copyvio of [2], which appears to be mirroring Wikipedia live. I think you should make sure your bot doesn't tag for copyvio from that site; perhaps we should also be doing something about the live mirroring? Ucucha 20:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't we can do: that's actually perfectly allowable. What confuses the heck out of me, though, is how the search engine index them so fast! — Coren ^(talk) 22:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps via the recent changes feed, like Google does. You're right, though, nothing wrong with it—I was confused. Ucucha 23:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I wrote the original Akiva Society article and am allowed to use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaphaelAnkawa (talk • contribs) 21:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Coren!

Your bot tagged an article I just created, Anna von Hausswolff. The text was not copied from anywhere, it's a translation from sv.wiki. I thought maybe the tracklist triggered it. However, much to my surprise, the home page does not contain one. Since there is no apparent reason for the tagging (at least not from a human POV ;)), I thought it might be of interest to you. Regards, decltype (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Coren! I received the following message, but as with the previous message the text was not copied from anywhere. I had previously saved it in my temporary space, but it was not copied from any website.--Das48 (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mary Ann Kilner, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.thepaleochorasite.com/wiki/index.php?title=Mary_Ann_Kilner&action=edit&redlink=1. 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) 16:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made the required changes, as it was considered for deletion. The earlier article was taken from other website, but since it was considered as Copy Right violation, we have made the changes.. Hence requesting to remove the warning from the article.. Thank you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feigle (talk • contribs) 07:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This image is owned by the City of Bath Bach Choir. It was used (and uploaded) by me on Bachtrack.com.

If someone could help me to place it correctly, to the right of the contents box, that would be helpful please. I can't seem to do it! Tony Thornburn (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The text copied from appropedia is cc-by-sa and I altered it significantly --Enviro1 (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Noted and the speedy deletion tag has been removed. Sorry for the inconvenience. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I have the URI to appropedia? If it's entirely CC-BY-CA, then I can add it to the list of sites it's okay to copy from. — Coren ^(talk) 15:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.appropedia.org/ VernoWhitney (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done. — Coren ^(talk) 17:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this copyvio report - reachinformation.com is just a Wikipedia mirror/spam site. --Sander Säde 18:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Dock Road Edwardian Pumping Station has material moved from Northwich. [3] spam's Wikipedia, and therefore has been caused the new page to be erroneously flagged as copyright infringement.  Pixie2000 (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also edited the 'original' source in Northwich, that was copied into [4], to make it distinct from the new page.  Pixie2000 (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The bot tagged Gothic! Ten Original Dark Tales as a copyvio of Teen Reads despite me rewording everything from the source. This has never happened to me before. Joe Chill (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You had the quote and the list of authors the same as the source, that's probably what it found. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That is something impossible to reword. Well, it was marked as resolved on the copyright issues noticeboard. Joe Chill (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no bot is able to figure out what can or cannot be reworded. — Coren ^(talk) 13:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the article California Pacific Airlines, the bot told me this. However http://www.flycpair.com has no text on the page. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, web sites present different data to bots than it does to humans. That's generally considered a slimy search engine optimization practice, but the only way around it would be for my bot to do the equally slimy action of lying about what it is to the web server. — Coren ^(talk) 13:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Bot Maintainer. I have just seen the message you left at User talk:Liualison regarding the article National Youth Organisation. There is inevitably some overlap of terminology and subject matter, but it is by no means a copy & paste job, which is what is insinuated. I have posted a welcome template ahead of the bot message & am removing said template. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Coren, The only edit I made was to the Bilderberg page aprox 7h ago, I didn't edit anyone else posts, I simply added my own unaware of Wiki's policies. The post was subsequently deleted and I started talking on Orange Mike's talk about how I can create the post in a neutral informative manner with proper sources to back my post up unaware of these policies previously. I thought I was on the right track creating a [[5]] that a kind member call BrighBlackHeaven created for me and asking members for advice, its now apparent I am not. In regards to my post I sincerely tried including as much information as I can whilst remaining neutral bearing in mind this is version 1.0 (supposedly unreleased!! How did you find it?) and also including some positive statements to balance out the topic. As this post would be sectioned under conspiracy theory I thought there might be some allowance to the balance of the story. Trying to be balanced to a secret backstabbing is not easy and I did try hard to not let my own voice take over, In fact most of my post is simple copy paste for now from major news publications. I would really like some advice because I am now really confused as to what is going on. All I want to do is share some information not many people know about, all of it RS and not promote a particular agenda but rather intellect and questioning. If your website doesnt support this, then I am in the wrong place, if it does I am sure we can find a way for me to create an informative neutral post with WK:RS. Thanks for any feedback, UNLiMiTED TRUTH (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, just highlighting the placement of a tag on the 2001 Salem Open article which seems to have been placed in error. The website that the bot believed the article to have been copied from contained photographs and not actual text; in addition, there were no photos in the article. It also referenced a tournament from January 2001, whereas this tournament took place in September 2001. This looks to have been a false positive in this case. Totalinarian (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the bot states that it had performed a web search with the contents of Fabrika Zirok, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://video.i7i.us/zirok (the site does not even work!). This is totally wrong, the article is not a substantial copy, because I just created the article from my own words, and the list of participants in the show cannot be considered as copyrighted because they are just names! A.h. king • Talk to me! 14:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the bot told me that the article Ascq Communal Cemetery appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.peterswar.net/Nord/AscqCC.htm. This is wrong, I made a translation of the french Wikipedia article with my own words and knowledge. Regards, Tobovs (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi fellow Checkuser Admin. I am in need of assistance of clearing my name from a current criminal charge of sock-puppetry. I kindly request you run your Checkuser tool to determine my IP and compare it that of Awliya's. You can find the sock-puppetry investigation in my Talk Page. Thank you for your help. -The Well Wisher (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Coren. I would like to direct you to the sockpuppet notice. A number of evidence has been provided, for example:

• User:The Well Wisher created an account and immediately restored the contentious edits of user:Awliya. Note, three confirmed sockpuppets of Awliya did the exact same thing.
• Like user:Awliya and confirmed sockpuppets, user:The Well Wisher contacted accounts that they have had no contact with canvassing for support.
• Like user:Awliya and confirmed sockpuppets, user:The Well Wisher in making comments uniquely draws a line break. For example, The Well Wisher here and Awliya did the exact same thing here and here. This is evidenced on other pages as well.

I think these are important considerations. --Ari (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Technical evidence supports the behavioral conclusion. I see no reason to intervene. — Coren ^(talk) 10:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Originally had copied bio from website. It has since been reworded to include pertinent information, but no longer a copy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Athensguitartrio (talk • contribs) 01:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fairly sure this is another case that CSBot almost never runs into, but take a look at the output of its tag here for a URL that includes [ and ] symbols. I'm unaware of a fix for this in wikicode and I'm not sure if it comes up often enough to bother with the performance tradeoff of a urlencode function, but I thought I should report it anyways. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Coren. I had to change my votes on both the CU and the OS poll. When I first voted I did so through en.wikipedia.org; the second time, through secure.wikimedia.org. I notice that my en.wiki votes haven't been removed by SecurePoll. Is this a delay, or will the first vote have to be manually stricken? Either way, could you deal with it if you can? I don't know precisely how the polling extension works. Thanks, AGK 16:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeay! You found what the bug causing duplicates was! Yeah, I'll have to strike your vote (that will take place, normally, after the polls close when we double check everything); but more importantly we have a bug report to make.  :-) Sorry you were its victim, though. — Coren ^(talk) 01:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I am very new to Wikipedia! I was experimenting. Please excuse me. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangulybiswarup (talk • contribs) 00:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I received a notice from the CorenSearchBot that the information in my article American Blues Theater was copied from copyrighted text. I am the owner of the copyright and am following Wikipedia's directions for allowing me to donate the text to this site. As instructed I am sending an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and placing OTRS pending on the article's discussion page. Thanks Coren! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanblues (talk • contribs) 05:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The bot tagged Margaretta M. Lovell as a copy of her bio page on the UC Berkeley website in error because it contains much of the same publicly-available factual information but no copied sentences. I'd appreciate your help clearing this up so the page for this decidedly "notable" person does not get deleted. Historianofart (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Somethings a bit off.... It thinks this resembles this. Yikes! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That... is teh suck. I'll look into it. — Coren ^(talk) 23:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

HI,

I just recently created a wikipedia page for the film company, Market Road Films, in which the director, Tony Gerber, himself asked me to do so. The Coren bot believes that an article posted by Hackley School contains the same content as some of the information posted on my page, but I find that both are different articles.

Thank You,

Melissa Rodriguez —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sickrubberducky (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the news on deleting that template? Any bots up and running to remove the transclusions and would it be OK to remove it manually in bulk? Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 02:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah... I just spotted the DR. That explains it --Jubilee♫clipman 02:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

     I had already picked you out among the CU-holders (as a name i've gotten familiar with for a long time). So i'm swallowing my embarrassment at realizing that it was to you that i so recently acknowledged -- in the face of your courteous accommodation -- how rude i had been to at least your bot (and probably to you).
     This is my first occasion to explicitly suggest CU attention. I'm not clear that it rises above the criteria for a fishing-expedition. But IMO the presumption of sockpuppetry is hard to dismiss, even tho i have no hint of who the puppetmaster might be, nor the goal such puppetry would further. (BTW -- whether the fact strengthens or weakens the case for investigation -- i find it hard to imagine the circumstances that would lead me to be involved in using the results.)
     In any case: User:Pedro8332 is a now 6-week-old 1-contrib account, created a minute before the contrib; i'm obliged to note that it is reasonable to see the truncation of an unsigned & digressive talk contrib as constructive, and that the ed-sum gives every evidence of good faith. I suppose the editor could, as an IP, have previously tried to remove unconstructive talk, but been reverted by a bot; they may now be waiting for another talk-removal they find worthy, before making a second edit. (They may even turn out later to have been slowly easing their way into participating in talk, or even in editing articles.) On the other hand, it strikes me as a lot more probable that the sophistication involved is accompanied by both previous editing experience and an active interest in working on articles. (Googling "Pedro8332" suggests the name wasn't made up out of thin air this month, but the extremely sparse picture the search paints is an odd one! -- perhaps that of a rarely used 'Net-wide alter ego.)
--Jerzy•t 05:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

•      Huh! In the process of implementing a more transparent cleanup of the rant Pedro removed, i noticed that its contributor, Org.aidepikiw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), had edited that talk pg more than once, then in turn that they were also a pretty new ed, their 2nd edit was to blank their own user page, and the content had been a sock tag. So a possible motivation on Pedro's part may have been to work in the anti-vandalism kitchen w/o taking the retaliatory heat. I suppose that if the situation appears unchanged in a week or two, i could weigh leaving an "In case my conjecture happens to be correct..." advisory at their talk pg, to the effect that there's no exemption for that kind of sock-puppetry (and IMO there shouldn't be), but action better informed by CU might be preferable. I shan't write you further on Pedro, unless you ask in this section for updates.
  --Jerzy•t 06:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  

I added notes at the talk page of Suki Kim, regarding the re-written effort for some contents from sukikim.com (which actually are several short and neural factorial sentences that have been copied around in several magazines, that I initially didn't think it's necessary to re-write to an effect that are totally different from the original content). Thanks for the reminder though, I rewrote the sentences by adding more details, hopefully that will help. Clari 2010 (talk) 06:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Coron bot belives that the text for this page is similar to a page on the dba site. The text is suitably different and the copyright for the dbs site rests with Mr Lambie-Nairn who authored the page on the dba site. Consequently the tag has been removed. 195.137.36.10 (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

		The Excellent User Page Award
		Ooh, the new userpage is very pretty! The background image is especially impressive. Have a barnstar for your efforts ;). Best, AGK 20:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the blue glow of DOOM!  :-) Thanks, but the credit also goes to Tiptoety whom I stole the fancy-userboxen-on-pretty-picture framework from. — Coren ^(talk) 00:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

*coughs* — copypasta gets around. fyi, see my page... in two days; it's dynamic and your image is due then. The original version of the boxes-on-pic is User:Josette.^oldid Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

But I just froze it on that scene for a bit... Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There is something strangely fascinating about that glow, isn't there? It's rather the coincidence, mind you, because when I saw Tip's page I simply knew it had to be that image for mine (and didn't know about your rotating collection). — Coren ^(talk) 00:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ya, I like it. I did the rotating page after you put up your page, and included your image; it says "for Coren" in there. And Tip's image is next. More than the images are dynamic; the quotes change, the colors change, the layout of stuff changes. The basic code for doing the wiki-text-whatever over an image was done, by me, on User:Giano II (there's an embedded comment on G's crediting User:Gnangarra for some of the bits; he later left me a note saying what he'd been looking at...). The first with the boxes was Jo's on Wikisource. There are a bunch of designs in my page's history. The lavender one I had up for most of last year used the negative margin technique to float the columns; no tables. Some of them don't look right when looking at the oldids because they're transcluding subpages the have changed, too. Someday tools will exist to pull up everything per an old date. see this old version of Central Java by me; it looks ridiculous because the image has changed and is much larger. Off; urgent message on my talk. And thanks for teh recent sorting. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding my voice to the growing throng appreciating your userpage! Liking Josette's also. Looks much more user friendly and professional than my also-copy-pasted effort (I forget from whom). Mine is getting a bit tl;dr perhaps! Oh well, a project for another day. Articles to source in the mean time... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I tidied yours up a bit; looks like you noticed, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Merridew (talk • contribs) 02:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize this web page existed. I'll rewrite the article...

http://creation.com/george-young-17771848. AshforkAZ (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Slovenian_Women's_League Your bot found a simmilarity. I don't think there is much in common (the article just started too). -Koppapa (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed at with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Administrator, the donation of copyright about the artile Li Yi (sociologist) has been emailed to the provided email address. Please advise if I could recover the original version of the article. Thank you very much! -SOCICN (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Coren, I did copy Igal Perry's bio from the peridance website, but it is not copyrighted material. Can I publish this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcc126e13 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Whatever material you copied needs to be explicitly in the public domain or appropriately licensed in order to remain on Wikipedia. As their website clearly states "©1998-2010 Peridance Center", unless you have permission to upload their material, their content should be removed. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help information. I've checked and re-worked the article. If there any issues, please let me know. Feel free to check it and remove tag, please?

Visik (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi CorenSearchBot. I have reworked the article and removed the tag. Please run your corensearchbot if you like and let me know of any issues. Thank you for your always helpful and informtive alerts.

Visik (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Bot placed wrong copyright tag ... have removed ... thanx Kaktus999 (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Coren, a response from you is required at [[6]] in relation to Shell's statement and the clarification that you posted in relation to Offliner. Either Shell is incorrect, or the clarification is incorrect. This absolutely needs to be clarified. Because it goes down to the crux of the issue as it actually does exist. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 10:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know the bot claimed that Zero Hour (album) included stuff from http://www.zerohourweb.com/ but the only similarity is the name. -Joltman (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The bot claimed that The Flaxton Boys contains a copyvio from http://www.britmovie.co.uk/forums/off-topic-discussion/29331-sixties-diary-january-1960-a-11.html

I went nowhere near this website when creating the article, wasn't even aware of its existence - it's just a discussion forum anyway. Copyright tag removed, thanks. Draggleduck (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I just corrected the spelling of this University (I studied from this University in 1993) from "Awdhesh" to "Awadhesh", since I didn't have rights to rename the page I created a new page and copy pasted the existing page content. So In essence I didn't create the content. The objection might be correct but I didn't create the content.--Debashish (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

How can one sentence be a copyvio? [7] Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it's not attributed and is extensive, it can be. Mind you, that statement certainly isn't. I think I need to tweak CSBot to be more forgiving of very short articles; I'll look into it. — Coren ^(talk) 15:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome.  :) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Bot made an error on Raphael Martinho....thanks Juve10 (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what connection there is between the video link cited by the bot and any of my cited print sources. I don't do video; dunno how. Fascinating link though.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there

I need help

Chris Noth, actor, is starring in my feature film, Sure Fire Hit. I have tried to add and edit the page that is linked on his page but I keep getting copyright issues with the sites www.surefirehit.co.uk, www.surefirehitmovie.com. I own the script, I own the rights to the film, I own the copyright to make the film and distribute it through Cupsogue Pictures. I have invested a lot of my own money into this project to get it made this year. I am the producer and director of the film. Have tried filling in the pages/messages but it still doesn't seem to get the page up... I really need some help as I am meeting Mr. Noth on Thursday, the investors want this up and sorted as part of the press pack..

I hope you guys can help.. I really do...

My IMDb page that shows my movie career is http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3013405/

Thanks again

Regards

Darren S Cook Director & Editor Mob: +44(0)7528 229631 http://www.darrenscook.com http://www.surefirehitmovie.com http://www.scruffybear.com http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3013405/ http://www.uk.filmcrewpro.com/cv/darrens.cook —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darenscook (talk • contribs) 09:48, 24 May 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) 12:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The swipebot cite on Karpatska Rus' is to document the date of the name channge from Lemko to Karpatska Rus' . Other citations are provided. The newspaper is an important example of foreign-language newspapers for immigrants in the U.S. I have removed the bot tag. Pustelnik (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Naïve (disambiguation), a page recently created by JHunterJ (talk · contribs), was tagged as a copyvio of a site that in all likelihood copied from our Naïve page. I think I know what happened and imagine it might not be possible to prevent this type of a false positive, but just in case I thought I'd let you know. —Soap— 13:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I created a wikipedia page for Stephen Auerbach, per Stephen Auerbach. He took his bio, which he wrote and has posted on his personal website, and wanted it copied to wikipedia. So we own the material. With that said, can you please allow the materials I posted to stay up on the site. You can email me back at superdavit@hotmail.com. Thanks,

David McElroy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdavit (talk • contribs) 17:49, 24 May 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) 18:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that there are 2 players called exactly Pak Nam-Chol at Korea DPR but there was a merged article (it was supposed to be one but with data from the others) so I'm creating both articles in the right way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baros1 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I want to know if i can use you perl script (which runs CorenSearchBot) on the French Wikipedia with my MystBot account. Thanks. Myst (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I do have a bug to fix (right now it's too sensitive on very short pages) that would be better done before you grab it. Give me a day and I'll go tell you on frwp once it's ready? — Coren ^(talk) 10:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no problem and thanks. fr:User_talk:Myst. Myst (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the bot tagged the new XOM page as a copy of an article (which is cited as the article by Bill Venners). This is only true insofar as the text in question is a paraphrase of the description of XOM provided by XOM's developer, Elliotte Rusty Harold. Given that he is trying to differentiate XOM from the other XML APIs in the field I felt it important to follow his particular description fairly closely, as his description is both accurate and differentiating. There is no content from the article in question apart from the quote from Elliotte. I am offline inviting Elliotte to improve the page. - HePiaMaku —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hepiamaku (talk • contribs) 23:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Responding on your talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No the article Walter Pilliet was not copied from a "Paleochorasite" website I have not heard of and cannot even access. The source, a standard reference book, is given on the page Hugo999 (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This article was tagged by the CorenSearchBot as a copy of this page. As that page contains no overlap with this article this bot has obviously made a serious error and I will remove the tag. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Within seconds of creating the article CorenSearchBot tagged it as a copy of this page, which doesn't seem remotely similar to the article. Therefore I will remove the tag from the article. Timbouctou (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm bothered by User:Nihil novi's participation in nationality issues, most recently at Chopin [8] , Talk:Chopin, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland. In my view, NN is a reincarnation of User:Logologist, who used sockpuppets User:Anatopism and User:KonradWallenrod to !vote at a nationality in the lead discussion at Copernicus. [9] IMO, NN as a restart of Logo is supported by wikistalker [10]. A behavioral point: Both have asserted that they met Czesław Miłosz in person and asked him if he knew the Lithuanian language. NN assertion here[11], Logologist assertion here. [12].

WP:CLEANSTART now reads: "That is, you should not turn up on a page you edited as User:A to continue the same editing pattern, this time as User:B—particularly while denying any connection to User:A, or if the edits or subject matter are contentious. You should also not, as User:B, engage in disputes you engaged in as User:A—whether they are disputes about articles, project-space issues, or other editors—without making clear that you are the same person."

The issues: do I need to make some sort of formal filing where the alleged restart is discussed; are the disputes similar enough to fall into the new policy requiring declaration; and is an NN withdrawal from Polish nationality disputes in order. Novickas (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The best place for this is probably WP:SPI, though, so that uninvolved editors can evaluate this. — Coren ^(talk) 10:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to file an SPI as long as they stay away from these disputes. They seem to have chosen the avoidance option, OK by me. It kind of grates on me to say this to people in power, but I appreciate your response. Novickas (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The situation between Lar and Polargeo, similar to the situation between Lar and Stephen Shultz is escalating. Here is the sequence of events:

1. Polargeo adds some views to the uninvolved admin section.
2. Lar moves these and adds one of his own views.
3. Polargeo reverts this, accidentally removing Lar's view.
4. Hipocrite returns Lar's view.
5. Lar move's polargeo's view again, and threatens to block Polargeo if he returns his view.

Lar was asked to stop removing views on his talk page and instead take a lower-drama action of noting his problems on the page by me, seconded by Thparkth.

This is rapidly spiriling out of control and needs emergy Arbcom intervention to prevent further disruption. I have asked both Lar and Polargeo to stop. Perhaps the individual who choses to stop first should be rewarded, as opposed to losing by default. Just a thought. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, The bot has tagged the page I just created Edirne incident. Not a single word had been copied from any source. (all is mine, maybe with some spelling errors. But certainly no violation of any copyright.) Cheers.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I couldn't pull up the website from which you thought a copy vio had happened, I suspect it used a copy of the long term WP article I was trying to move from its previous corp name of Burst.com to Democrasoft. With the new WP format, I couldn't find the "Move" tab so did a cut and paste job that I botched. Fortunately another WP editor came along who realized what I had done and helped me. He/she also explained how to go back to the old WP format where the "Move" tab is obvious. OccamzRazor (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The article has nothing to do with the comic your bot placed it as copying; it's a hit electropop single. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmurawski (talk • contribs) 08:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Your bot has flagged this article as copying text from a website I've never heard of. I wrote a quick factual summary of the album and track listing (using the layout from a different wikipedia page). The only place I took text from was my own copy of the album to get the track listing and producer (though obviously the track listing appears on numerous websites too). Essentially it looks like the bot is a bit over-sensitive.

MagicBez (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think your search bot is confused, or at least wrong about information "copied" from this link [13]. Cmm3 (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Cmm3

When I uploaded a picture of the R&B group Ozone, the bot looked up a picture of Pitbull and said that it was a pic of the same thing. I have no idea how it reached that conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atari2 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This source is a wp mirror, and should not have been tagged copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's mirroring Ovda not Ovda (Israel). Coren's bot often helps us find and repair cut and paste moves of this sort. I'll do clean up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I received a note on an article I had created, Radio Killa Records, from your bot. I think the site [14] basically copies Wikipedia for most of its material, so maybe you could blacklist it from your bot? Thanks. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 08:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

'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) 10:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)'

Hello, CorenSearchBot is in error; this military history article has nothing to do with neither the NHS, nor http://www.apictureofhealth.nhs.uk/documents/view.aspx?id=211

Regards Greenwich Pensioner —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenwichPensioner (talk • contribs) 10:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As indicated at the bottom of the article, most of the information was obtained from NASA at the source indicated. The Image is from wikimedia commons not http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/explorer_se-a.htm nor was any of the text from this "skyrocket" source. It is illegal to claim a copyright on noncopyrighted US Government supplied information or images. I was not aware of the "skyrocket" source; however, THE source is NASA and I've indicated that accordingly. Marshallsumter (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Copies of copies are annoying this way. No bot can be smart enough to figure out exactly who copied whom — just enough to point the similarity out. — Coren ^(talk) 14:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please ping me if you received my mail. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 05:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have. It'll have my full attention within 24h. — Coren ^(talk) 14:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your bot tagged me with a possible copyvio for this article (here). First of all, I wrote it myself. Secondly, I don't see any similarities whatsoever with the webpage I allegedly copied it from. I think it must be a malfunction, please resolve this a.s.a.p. Thanks! - Yk (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

CSBot really sucks when tabular data is involved (and, indeed, at even recognizing it). In this case, if you compare the raw text of both pages, they share over 90% of the words(!)— though that's unavoidable since most of both pages are the list of members of the Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak and their responsibilities. The bot cannot distinguish legitimate reuse of the same data (of which this is a case) and simply notes the similarity. — Coren ^(talk) 14:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at it again and it wasn't the table that confused the bot. Look at this link: it was only two paragraphs. - Yk (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That was part of it, certainly, but the duplication of the proper names and job titles is the bulk of it. At any rate, though to worry about. — Coren ^(talk) 15:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The bot appears to have found fault with the title Irish language outside Ireland. This (from the reference given) resembles the title of a certain academic paper of whose existence I was unaware and from which I did not quote. The article and the paper are in fact very different. The bot, though in error, is forgiven.

Colin Ryan (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's wrong. This shouldn't have been a match; maybe because of the bibliography? I'll look into this, but that really looks like it's a problem. — Coren ^(talk) 14:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Bot has confused material on the article I posted for Faderhead Black Friday for existing material. The link the bot gave for the existing material didn't work, and also the information posted on the site was sourced from the bands newsletter, which was only sent out today. Alinblack (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your bot seemed to think my first draft of the Hold That Line article contained a lot from the Progressive Populist. I searched that referenced page, and other than finding the words "Hold That line" there is no similarities.

Donaldd23 (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your bot seemed to think my first draft of the Wynne Godley article contained a lot from the Telegraph obituary, apparently on the basis of some salient facts? It seems rather oversensitive; I just wrote the first draft to cover the main events,—Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinc (talk • contribs) 10:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)