User talk:Coren/Archives/2010/June

Bot error

Yeah, your bot made an error in claiming that Victory Road (2010) is a copyright violation. Extremely doubtful I've made any violation, since it and about 200 other PPV articles share the same format. Thought to inform you of the mistake, since that is what the message says to do. I'll just go ahead and remove the tag.--WillC 07:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bot error

It looks as though the bot has made an error regarding the 2002 ARAG World Team Cup; the copyright issue in question concerned a gambling website which only matched the tournament in name and was not even related to the year of the article. Totalinarian (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Another site to whitelist?

So Housepets! was tagged today as it wasn't using an attribution tag, but the source it copied from (specifically http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Housepets! although wikifur.com hosts other languages too) is dual-licensed. I don't imagine there are many imports from it, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So you don't have to check, all languages hosted on subdomains of wikifur.com are CC-BY-SA/GFDL dual-licensed. GreenReaper (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

CP Merriam Park Subdivision

I believe your bot made an error in claiming CP Merriam Park Subdivision is a significant copy of this page. I will note that the source page is very short, so maybe a common set of words between the two is a large percentage? —Mulad (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

csb.pl

Salut, c'était pour savoir si tu avais mis à jour csb.pl, merci. Myst (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Il y a un probleme avec les petites pages en ce moment que je tente de regler. Des que c'est fait, je te fais signe. — Coren ^(talk) 10:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

D'ac, merci, j'ai commencer à faire tourner mon bot fr:user:MystBot sur la fr.wiki. Myst (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Giant cell carcinoma of the lung

Your bot returns a gripe about the above article, the few general sentences of which I wrote out of my head. Hard to tell if what I wrote and what is on the other page is similar or not, since the page link it sent for me to compare it to is broken. I assure you I wrote the text myself. Let me know what to do next. Thanks.

Regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Mount Storegutt

I have created the Mount Storegutt (and many other recently created Antarctica geography stubs) over the past couple of days. These stubs are to fill in redlinks on various other Antarctica-related pages. They are substantially the same information as that contained on the USGS GNIS database for Antarctica geographic features, and the appropriate template is included on each of the new stubs:

 This article incorporates public domain material from "Coren/Archives/2010/June". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey.

I am preparing to expand each of these stubs, as well as to delete the related sections from the original pages (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Antarctica. DiverDave (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added the template to the list CSBot knows about; it should no longer bug you about those. — Coren ^(talk) 10:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have a moment...

I would like some assistance with the revdel issue you contacted me about. I thought I had reversed my action, but I'm very puzzled to see that the AN log is still not showing it. I just noticed it when I saw that Happy-melon had reversed the revdel of all of the similar edits to both AN and ANI. Except mine - because it's not in the log. I'd reverse it myself, but considering how well that went last time... —DoRD (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there are still problems about logs when revision deletions are mixed with regular deletions and some other arcana. I'll see if I can figure something out, but my own view is complicated by the fact that I see deleted and oversighted revisions just fine (only marked up) and it's not clear which state they are in exactly. — Coren ^(talk) 13:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I imagine that might confuse things a bit. Anyway, it just occurred to me that FT2 may have some insight as to where the log entry went. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot

I thought you might want to chime in at WP:ANI#User:Libb Thims/Saudi Carnot.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

CSBot down

I wasn't working SCV today so I didn't notice earlier, but it hasn't tagged anything since early this morning. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it's working. Odd. I'll keep an eye on it. — Coren ^(talk) 10:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it is; but everything it tried to tag in a while was already speedied. Odd coincidence? I'll keep an eye on it regardless. — Coren ^(talk) 10:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's quite the coincidence given that it normally doesn't go longer than a couple of hours without tagging something. Oh well, thanks for looking into it. I guess I might just be out of a job today. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Something's definitely broken. Checking. — Coren ^(talk) 23:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I take it that it's not an everyday technical issue? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Combined with an annoying lack of free time. I'll set aside a few hours for this today. — Coren ^(talk) 13:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand, and I don't mean to pester, I was just curious (and wanted to keep it from archiving). ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oooh. Thanks, Coren. I've just become aware that the Visigoths are overrunning the Empire. You, my dear sir, have become indispensable! (Wish I could help you, but I am annoying tech-deficient. :/) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sooooo... to make a long story short: I've spent days trying to figure out what the [bleep] happened that made CSBot not work anymore until I figured out, just now, that when my I upgraded the server it ran on it changed IP and ended up sitting squarely in the middle of a rangeblock. There was nothing wrong with the bot itself. Aaaaugh! — Coren ^(talk) 01:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That's no fun at all. I'm glad you got it figured out, I was beginning to feel out of work. Thanks! ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What the ?????

I'm afraid your bot seems to have gone a bit mad when it labelled Matthew Sharpe (general) as being copied from [1]!! I see the name of a (different) Matthew Sharpe appears in one place on the library page, but apart from that I see no similarity. And seeing as I spent the last couple of hours writing the Wiki article on a fairly obscure individual, it would be an amazing coincidence if a similar text exists anywhere.

I take copyright seriously, and frankly I was quite insulted at having a big fat copyvio notice stuck on the top of an article I have worked on. So I took it off. Any chance of an apology?

Lozleader (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

aaargh! It's been listed here [2]! Am I allowed to delete that entry? I do feel that my reputation as na editor in god standing is being attacked with a totally baseless allegation! Not happy! Lozleader (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll apologize on behalf of the bot. :) It isn't personal, and fortunately the ratio of false positives is low, but sometimes something triggers a reaction where there is no concern. I realize that this is disconcerting but hope you will understand that the human reviewers who follow up on these listings know that this happens and realize that it implies no wrong-doing on your part when it does. The template itself acknowledges the possibility of error, in its first subline ([3]). Unfortunately, most of the time the bot catches items of genuine concern. Of the 18 listed before yours, 10 have already been speedily deleted, 4 have been cleaned up and 1 is blanked while we wait for permission. (The others haven't been checked yet.) Would we had more false positive! :/ Anyway, we do not delete the entries at SCV anymore in part for this reason; if you remove it, it is much harder to verify that it has been evaluated and found to be a false positive. As it stands now, there is "on the record" vindication in another pair of eyes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It's good when it works :-) Lozleader (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

question re: conversation on another talk page

Without touching on any of the back and forth that I've no desire to jump in to, I did see one good point that may have been missed. Have you considered commenting at WT:Reviewing#Removal_of_rights on your stance regarding the serious of removing these rights without propper reasons?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That thread is a mess, because it conflates a number of only tangentially related issues about procedure and policy wording. To be entirely honest, I don't care very much at this time about the dispute about who gets to remove the bit and how to go about it — we're still heading only for a test after all and such things are predictably in flux. I don't know how helpful another voice in that fray would be.

My point is that using any admin power abusively is grounds for a desysop, and I doubt you'll find many people to defend the position that using threat of removing the bit from someone who isn't vandalizing or letting vandalism through is in any way acceptable; even if it's not yet clear what the "right" process would be in cases of real misuse.

I think it's important to let the dust settle down a little before going crazy with process. Writing policy by guessing at what the problems might be is rarely a good idea. — Coren ^(talk) 16:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just thought with admins promoting the 'who cares if it's taken away wrongly it only takes a few clicks to give it back' [4] point of view I wouldn't have minded another voice or two saying what you just said. That abusing an admin power is abusing an admin power.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I just did comment on that particular aspect. — Coren ^(talk) 17:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. Appreciate it.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Abuse

Thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

re; Katherine Chon art.

Hello - my article on katherine chon, founder of Polaris Project, was flagged for copying from the organization's web page - there were some direct quotations, but they were attributed to the page. In addition, the content used was used with permission from the site owner. I did note that donated text is still beholden to wiki guidelines, however, I believe that it complies in this case. Thanks, Thesocialearth (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy Szafron

Jeremy Szafron is an important Canadian, who represents the country in television, why is this up for deletion? I have used his site to source some information but did not copy sentences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dino52 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

About the topic.

I believe that I may have found out the person that is behind it. I just recieved an e-mail on my Live account from a person who calls himself User:Onelifefreak2007. It turns out to be a blocked user who does follow the same style of editing. Rohedin ^TALK 00:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll understand that I cannot confirm or deny this. Please make sure your password is secure, and that your email setting points to an email account that is under your control (preferably change its password as well). I would appreciate it if you would forward that email you received to ArbCom's mailing list (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org) as well. — Coren ^(talk) 01:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

List of commercial goods allowed for import into Gaza

Hello,

A list is a list. In this case, it is a list of exactly 81 items which were allowed to pass into Gaza. Those were the only items allowed entry and no others. This cannot be a copyright violation, as there is no copyright on a list... I have removed the banner. GastelEtzwane (talk) 05:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Email

Hi there. I just sent you an email. Amsaim (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Diabetes Insulin Tutorial page

Hi. I just started trying to set up a Diabetes Insulin Tutorial page - and received a bot message to say that there could be a copyright violation - siting a similar website. The next thing I know the Diabetes Insulin Tutorial start page has been deleted. The bot sited a web page hosted by Rick Mendosa. I made this material available to Rick Mendosa for use at his website!! I would like to expand the Diabetes Insulin Tutorial - and make it available for others to contribute to - and add to. Something which I cannot do at my own website which hosts the original source material on the internet. Please check out: http://www.2aida.info

I am working my way through the copyright declaration info - and would be grateful were you to advise how I may have long enough to get the material up on the web + updated without it being summarily deleted...

Thanking you for any assistance that you may be able to provide.

AIDA-Dr —Preceding unsigned comment added by AIDA-Dr (talk • contribs) 10:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Rohedin

Coren,

Could you take a look? Rohedin got himself in another jam. I'm really pretty sure this is him being sort of dumb, rather than a hacker, but he's had unblock requests declined twice and I think we could user your Checkuser magic pixie dust. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Pascal Coste

As asserted in the edit summary, this is a translation of the French wikipedia article at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_Coste. http://www.speedylook.com/Pascal_Coste.html is a translation of the same French article, hence the apparent similarity. Please stop deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neddyseagoon (talk • contribs) 12:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Anderson Avenue

Anderson Avenue (New Jersey) has been moved as a merge since the move option did not appear possible and is so recorded and re-directed.Djflem (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

William Way Community Center

Thanks for your cool bot which captured the copywrite from the William Way webpage. I am the new Executive Director of William Way and so OK the minor use of webpage text (I revised the page to have even less direct language). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harveymilk (talk • contribs) 12:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

PRoVisG

Hi,your bot found a false positive for PRoVisG. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon turriform churches

I don't know what's going on here. I just created this as a brand new article, and almost immediately the bot tagged it as a possible copyvio. When I clicked on the link provided, the notice from the bot was there as well as an exact copy of the article. I suspect this is a mirror site with very fast reflexes, but how do I prove it? I will place a notice on the article talk page as suggested in the template, but I would appreciate human help in resolving this.Yngvadottir (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Coren, this is another hit from http://www.thepaleochorasite.com/wiki/. Any chance of white listing them to avoid the insta-mirror effect? VernoWhitney (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Whenever I read that domain name, I see "the parasite". Heh. — Coren ^(talk) 23:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And here I thought it was just me... VernoWhitney (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Asteriod...

Could you double check why a message was left at User talk:Merovingian. I can't see any similarity in text and am concerned to know what caused the "match" because of the huge number of short asteriod articles Wikipedia has. It could lead to a mass of taggings. Rmhermen (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed search-bot's tag re: The Red-Headed League (1985 TV Episode)

Just a note to say I triggered your search bot in moving the page, and have removed the tag. This being my first stab at this, I've goofed, and now see how to do this. Am going to blank and tag the page for deletion, and start over. Thanks.Jusdafax 01:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For spending untold hours of your time keeping CSBot up and running and updated, without which we would be missing dozens of new copyright violations every day. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's appreciated. — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot incorrectly tagged Krisztián

CorenSearchBot placed a {{csb-pageincludes|1=http://xn--krisztin-fza.com}} tag on the Krisztián page a few seconds after I'd created it. It said, “The CorenSearchBot has performed a web search with the contents of this page, and it appears to include a substantial copy of: http://xn--krisztin-fza.com”. I've removed the tag.

How could a bot get it so wrong? Regards — Hebrides (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Trying to delete a section that was in question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_Gap_(of_Pine_Mountain)

I deleted the section that says was copyright (even though I cited the source), but I didn't know how to get rid of the CorenSearchBot on the page. Apparently I did it wrong because then I was cited for vandalism and the section showed back up. I am trying to delete the whole "History" section & timeline. Thank you! Or is there is a way to keep the Timeline information (which is history, and not something the writer created) and delete the summary at the top of the history section?

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.N.farm (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC) 

That's probably an error from the one who noticed your removal; most of the time, such blankings are actually vandalism and the person didn't notice why you did it. — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Florence Ita Giwa

The bot got a false positive on this article, which it suspected was a copy of http://allafrica.com/stories/200012020116.html. I can't even read this source, which needs a subscription to access. Presumably it gives a similar outline of the main events in the subject's life. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Boobytrapped webpages and drive-by-downloads

CorenSearchBot directed me to a webpage it erroneously concluded I had copied. When I viewed the webpage, part of it was filtered out by the security on my network (possibly because my settings are quite intolerant).

Webpages containing malicious features are on the increase (drive-by-downloads, vulnerability exploits, etc). What precautions do you take to ensure that your bot is not directing me to a boobytrapped webpage? Regards — Hebrides (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Article on Ganesh Prasad

Thanks. I was not aware of the rule "text found on other web pages is copyrighted by default". I have tried to wikify the article. Suggestions for further improvements are most welcome. Krishnachandranvn (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Standard (flag)

I just took the text exactly as it is in the article Heraldic flag to create a specific article in order to expand the subject. Banderas (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Harris County School District

False positive on copyvio for Harris County School District, this has happened on other School District pages which only have a list of schools. Why the bot thinks a list is a copyvio is beyond me. Please fix this. Thanks. --Mjrmtg (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Johann Bauer (soldier)

This is a false positive, the link that the bot put is not even accessible. DocYako (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Richard Waldron

The Richard Waldron article was treated as duplicate of other material, but I believe the 'bot only found the first copy I generated in what I believe is called my "sandbox" and hence no copyright violation actually occurred. Please advise if I've missed anything.RWIR (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot error

Hi. I received a false positive copyvio on 14491 Hitachiomiya. Reverted and noted on talk page. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 21:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Again

I received a false positive copyvio on 18639 Aoyunzhiyuanzhe. Reverted and noted on talk page. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 20:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

A question regarding arbitration

I have a question regarding the race and intelligence arbitration case. (I also asked this here, and one of the people who responded suggested that I ask an arbitrator about it directly.) Could you please explain what the relationship is between proposed decisions suggested by non-arbitrators on the workshop page, and the proposed decisions that are voted on by the arbitrators? In particular, I’d like to know whether I can expect the arbitrators to determine for themselves what decisions to propose based on the evidence that’s been presented, or whether it’s necessary for one of us to propose a decision on the workshop page if we want the arbitrators to consider it. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The decision is drafted mostly independently of the workshop proposals, based on the evidence and our own examination of the matter; the workshop's primary purpose is to "gel" the evidence into analysis of central points, and helps clarify the expectations of the parties.

That being said, every arbitrators' approach to the workshop varies: I tend to look at it to see if one of the parties have raised a key point which was not apparent from the evidence alone, and to evaluate what the parties themselves see as central to the case, but I rarely interact directly with it (so you can see it as an extension of the evidence). Others will "test drive" ideas for decisions there, and tweak remedies there (so you can see it as a draft of the proposed decision).

But to answer your specific question: there is no need to present proposals on the workshop before they end up in the proposed decision, but if there is a point you feel is not obvious and that we might miss, it's a good way to make us aware of it. — Coren ^(talk) 15:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

St mary's uttoxeter

I had a message User:CorenSearchBot and it claimed that the article St Mary the Virgin Church Uttoxeter had been copied, this was not the case and the link it sent was a dead one, MARK BEGG (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

e-mail

I sent you a wikimail. Please give me a ping if you received it. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I did. Give me a few days and I'll reply. — Coren ^(talk) 21:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Authorship of the Creed of the United States Coast Guardsman

With regard to the authorship of the Creed, it was authored by the Commandant of the Coast Guard in 1938, by Vice Admiral Harry G. Hamlet and is in the public domain. The question of copyright infringement brought up by CorenSearchBot is erroneous. Since the Creed is in the public domain, it is not copyrightable by Jack's Joint: http://www.jacksjoint.com/creed_of_the_united_states_coast.htm or any other site on the internet and copies that exist on such sites are merely copies of material on the official Coast Guard website: http://www.uscg.mil/history/faqs/creed.asp . It should be noted that the material is used in the Wikipedia article United States Coast Guard and the article Harry G. Hamlet without a problem. I intend to finish the edit of the article using the public domain material authored by Hamlet. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You were saying?

What exactly was it that you were saying on my page just last week. I suggest you see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Removing autoconfirmed!  Giacomo  20:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It is an horribly bad idea, but it doesn't really change any of what I've told you. — Coren ^(talk) 21:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't change a thing, but it shows that anything which a Wikipedia editor accepts can be used as weapon to beat him with. All ordinary editors (as opposed to mighty Admins) should throw all "gifts! straight back in the face of those who bestowed them. At one time being an Admin "was no big deal." Now, many of them patrol and strut about the project like jackbooted dominatorers and dominatrici threatening and intimidating - I am not of that pursuasion and I don't care for it. Quite simple really.  Giacomo  07:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The amusing part, of course, is that the proposal is sinking spectacularly. Rather undermines your theory about packs of roving admins lurking in the dark seeking new ways to dominate you, does it not? — Coren ^(talk) 10:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the tide of opinion has certainly changed there,since I took an interesst in the page.  Giacomo  15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sure that the proposal began to sink when people saw that you opposed it, Giano, and not because they've realised since the trial started that the whole thing is a bit of a mess. Thank you for helping us all to see the light! AGK 15:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• It was a pleasure AGK, it always pleases me to shine a little light on a dark corner. INcidentally, who is Fences and windows a renaissance of? Whenver a new name appears multiple times on my watchlist it's usually an "old friend" reborn.  Giacomo  20:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

copyright notice

You should already have previous copyright approval Shilaski (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Mohammed Aruwa

This is the second false positive I have been hit with in 3 days. It is getting annoying. I do not have access to the web source cited, which is behind a paywall. I cannot imagine that there is any resemblance between the web source and the Mohammed Aruwa article, apart perhaps for some of the basic biographical facts. The article was pieced together from the sources cited. There is something wrong with the algorithm - clearly it is far too sensitive. Can you please respond with some sort of explanation? Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ofek-9 article

A false positive. The material wasn't copied and therefore does not infringe any copyrights (actually based on a similar article). PluniAlmoni (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

good day! this is regarding to my post about 6000 goonz. i know they have the right to be part of your encyclopedia because they are the philippine's elite hiphop production. they are the only rap production that was blessed by the late filipino hiphop king Francis Magalona. the have to be here in wikipedia because i want people to know all about 6000 goonz label. please stop removing them in your encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marckiann (talk • contribs) 12:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Lumpkin County School District

Another false positive on a school district page posted on User talk:Tamer of hope. Can someone please explain what is wrong with the bot? Or turn it off? --Mjrmtg (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds of Salvation (band)

Various references sourced including http://ministryofmusic.co.uk/SoundsofSalvation.aspx but also their official myspace, facebook and their profile on greenbelt.org.uk. I am seeking out other sources to back up the article too —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortynights (talk • contribs) 14:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Your bot

I think your bot must be getting confused... I fail to see how this version of a biography of a minor Spanish politician could have copied from this non-existent page! Physchim62 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And again on Marta Gastón Menal. Please either fix your bot or stop it running, as it is disrupting bona fide article creation in the name of copyright paranoia. Physchim62 (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Follow up

You have not responded to my request for clarification on the bot malfunction with the article on Mohammed Aruwa which I posted three days ago. Perhaps you are busy in real life. Please have the courtesy to respond here, on my talk page, or via email if you are more comfortable with that. I would prefer not to escalate if there is a simple explanation. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsession_%281997_film%29 This is my first Article, can you please check and update me if it needs any more fixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaniaYoussef (talk • contribs) 02:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

CML Microcircuits

CML Microcircuits

We are new to Wikipedia, and our intention is to link CML Microcircuits with other Wikiedpedia pages that have CML mentioned, such as dPMR Mou and other semiconductor pages.

We have permission to use all CML content. It is for the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CML_Microcircuits

I hope you can let us continue, and keep the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CML Micro (talk • contribs) 08:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible Sock puppetry ?

• Hi,

In my research on Wikipedia, I think I have found sock puppet accounts.Take a look at these articles.:

• Eurogrand EG8180-RD
• Eurolive B1800X PRO
• Eurolive VS1220

They are all written today, in same way, in same formatting style, all about musical instruments written like advertisement.Though they all are created by different users.I think those are all sock puppet accounts.You should take action quickly.Those users are:

• User:Mackyquilala
• User:Musicrave
• User:Midori sama

Thanks and please reply.RegardsMax Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 09:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Jan de Van Graaff

Whilst it might appear to a bot that a proportion of this profile is infringement of the copyright of a third-party this is clearly not the case as all that was taken from the aforementioned web page is Graaff's list of past publications. Due to the uniform nature of referencing systems and the fact that it is common practice to list them alphabetically it is easy to see how this might fool a bot but there is no other way to list this very simple and basic information in any other fashion. This is in no way an infringement on any type of copyright in any way nor is it even a form a plagiarism of any kind to the best of my knowledge.--Discott (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Bot is oversensitive to Stub classed articles

This bot tagged Izačić as a copyvio. A Stub article on a city or municipality will not have not much info other than maybe its source URL. If the bot is correct, then almost every Stub class article would be a copyvio. Recommend shutdown.----moreno oso (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that false positives happen, since people understandably find them upsetting and they do waste a bit of time for content creators and copyvio reviewers, but even more unfortunately most of the tags the bot places are not false positives. The number of redlinks and the lists of actions taken for yesterday's bot tags for instance (Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2010-06-24) suggests that shutting down the bot would not be a net positive. Better to handle the few false positives it hits than to miss the many legitimate problems that it finds. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot error

Hi. I received a false positive copyvio on 23608 Alpiapuane. Reverted and noted on talk page. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 23:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ward-Nasse Gallery

Hello I received a false positive error CorenSearchBot. Page - Ward-Nasse Gallery Tanton2008 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC).

Race and intelligence arbitration

I’m sorry to bother you again, but I have another question about the arbitration case for this article. Last Friday, on the arbitration evidence talk page, you said “I intend to post a proposed decision sometime early next week to give enough time for discussion before committee activity falls off due to Wikimania and summer vacations.”

It’s now Thursday evening, and editors have recently resumed adding controversial material to the History of the race and intelligence controversy article without discussing it beforehand, and reinstating these edits after they’re reverted even though there’s clearly no consensus for them. This is especially problematic because the reason the material was removed is because it might be a BLP violation—one of the things we’ve been hoping ArbCom would rule on is how BLP policy applies to these sorts of claims about living individuals. This is now being argued about on the evidence talk page, but since the arbitrators aren’t participating in that discussion, we aren’t making any more progress towards resolving it than we were before the arbitration case. The arbitration pages seem to just be becoming a replacement for the article talk pages.

Will the arbitrators be getting more involved in this case soon? I was really hoping that they would begin working on resolving these issues before now. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there was a rush of evidence and workshop proposal that I needed to examine; but I expect to be able to post a decision tonight or early tomorrow. Mind you, there will still be a bit of discussion and voting after that. — Coren ^(talk) 10:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you waiting for the discussions on the workshop page and the arbitration talk pages to be finished first? If you are, I don’t think that’s going to happen, at least not anytime soon. All of the same arguments that have been ongoing on article talk pages for the past several months are just continuing on the arbitration pages now, so we can probably expect them to continue indefinitely for as long as the arbitration case is in progress.

The editor who originally requested this case, Rvcx, has recently stopped participating in it because the quantity of material resulting from these arguments has become too long for him to follow or navigate. Rvcx mentioned this here. I’m sorry to need to ask you about this again, but if the length of this arbitration case is causing some of the involved users to drop out of it, isn’t that going to make it more difficult for it to proceed? --Captain Occam (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam claims the edit is controversial. But the edit in question is multiply sourced, and in this case comes from an academic text in a Stanford University series, written by professors from UCLA and the University of Texas, Austin. Captain Occam is misrepresenting the editing patterns of other users. Here is the muliply sourced edit[5] and here is another one from today.[6] Captain Occam, David.Kane and Mikmikev have devised a scheme for objecting to any edits mildly concerned with the research in the late 60s and early 70s of Arthur Jensen. According to this strategy, if they did not like a book review in a peer-reviewed journal of a book by a living author, they can blank any material from that book review on wikipedia as a BLP violation. In this case, Enric Naval reinserted the Thursday edit, blanked by Mikemikev, and David.Kane then blanked Naval's edit, claiming in his edit summary that content issues had to be decided by ArbCom. These people have used inappropriate claims of NLP violations to bring editing on the article to a halt. They themselves have not added or suggested any relevant content from a WP:RS since the article was started. Mathsci (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Bac Giang Railway Station

The bot got confused just now; I created Bac Giang Railway Station as a stub with a self-written single line of text for now, which I'm sure wouldn't be copyrightable anyway. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 22:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Bot appears to be confused by tables

I am using various articles as a source for tables for articles such as 1914 American Grand Prize which your bot is tagging. These tables are not copyrighted and they are not "sentences". Could you change your bot to ignore information in table form? -Drdisque (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Bugui Point Lighthouse, flagged by CorenSearchBot as a copy.

I just started a new article about the Bugui Point Lighthouse and it was immediately flagged that it could be a copy. This is an error as the only thing similar is the name of the article. I will be removing the tag from CorenSearchBot following the instruction. Briarfallen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briarfallen (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

== Remove Silence, flagged by CorenSearchBot as copyright violation

The article uses excerpts from a press release for the band which was distributed to all press worldwide, we released that press release and have copyright ownership. if you need further evidence we can provide this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulkeeper78 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

GFI Group, Inc

The bot has added a link with a copyright issues. Have removed the link. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamariagfi (talk • contribs) 13:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Contents of ISO 999

Many thanks for the input, i have revised the contents of ISO 999 - Shmilyshy (talk • contribs) 14:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot confusing material copied from Wikipedia as copy violations

Within seconds, the bot identified Cariris Indians as a copy vio of http://www.freebase.com/view/en/cariris, yet at the bottom of the page it clearly states: "The original description for Cariris was automatically generated from Wikipedia.org...". I've simply been creating a disambig page for Cariris by splitting out the two articles that were fighting over the same title (successive reverts between two totally different articles). Astronaut (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) While that is a false positive, reports like that help us correct copy/paste recreations of pages instead of redirects as well as attribution where editors split pages but, unlike you, don't attribute the original source of the content. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Seen this?

[7] Did you really imagine that I would be proved wrong?  Giacomo  20:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: Since I highlighted the matter, the travesty seem to have been rectified [8] What is being done to train Admins to ensure this does not happen to those unfortunate enough to not be on watch list?  Giacomo  20:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be the point of a community project. The egregious excesses tend to correct themselves since, on average, people aren't batshit crazy and notice when things get silly. — Coren ^(talk) 23:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

True, but it's a pity that it took so long for an Admin to notice it. Are they given no guidelines oin this matter or do they just have carte blanche to do as they wish?  Giacomo  07:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

egregious excesses tend to correct themselves since, on average, people aren't batshit crazy and notice when things get silly - that may be true of the general population but I'm not so sure that Wikipedia editors (and admins) are a representative random sample of that population.radek (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd expect the average is roughly at the same place regardless. We have a high nut density, but our demographics otherwise lean on the more educated side. — Coren ^(talk) 10:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's just hope that it's a fat tails thing rather then that we draw overwhelmingly from the "bat shit crazy" tail of the distribution. Academics can be more nutty than average too, I'd speculate.radek (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Beruby

the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beruby is now edited and it is no more a copy of other webpage —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scardu (talk • contribs) 22:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Christophers

What do you mean I copied it from http://www.myspace.com/sarahchristophers? I based the filmography mainly on IMDB. I wrote the short biography my self. I also tried checking the url and it's a 404 page. How can I have copied a copyrighted item from a page that can't be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Francis (talk • contribs) 16:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

sorry

Hello, Coren. You have new messages at The Nut's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nut (talk • contribs) 20:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)