![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
I created this page modeled on another one (Saint-Evariste-de-Forsyth) that your bot confused as the same. I verified the content on both and everything should be alright. -- Andy28203 ( talk) 02:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
All I'm making is a collection of small stubs, but they're legit. -- User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 00:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI: I have filed a request for arbitration regarding recent bans of user accounts from which no activities could be found that dispupt Wikipedia. The arbitration request can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Block of editors related to sockpuppet Jvolkblum You are not mentioned as an involved party, I send you this message for your information. I hope that your opinion there can contribute to solve the issue. Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 22:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm dealing with what seems to me to be a WP:BLP issue at Oxford English Limited. (There was an OTRS letter about it this morning, but not complaining of BLP.) I found a fair amount of unsourced, mostly nonsense but to me troublesome text including allegations like, "The sexual politics of the group was bizarre. One female undergraduate had to organise a complaint from the girls at Wadham College regarding the crepuscular activities of its cult leaders" (which certainly smacks of sexual harassment allegations). I removed the text, which has now been restored twice by one contributor, who may or may not be the registered counterpart of the IP that originally added it. He indicates that sources are forthcoming. I've opened a ticket at BLPN, here, but am wondering if I should just protect the article pending resolution. I've only played the BLP card once, really, and would prefer not to overuse it, but this material is really perplexing me. The text is just so bizarre that if it hadn't been placed on March 29th, I'd be looking around for Ashton Kutcher. If you have time and inclination, could you give me a second administrator opinion? I'm inclined to think that the material needs to stay out pending consensus at BLPN (typically slow-going), but don't want to protect the article or otherwise use admin tools if it doesn't look as much of a concern to others as it does to me...especially since I've been taking care of my post-operative husband for days now, and am pretty sleep-deprived. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I received this message:
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Second lining, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.nojazzfest.com/chat/archive/index.php/t-1731.html.
The article Second lining is not new. I just moved the article from Second line to a newly created page named Second lining to be able to redirect Second line to a disambiguation page. If the content really was copied... it was not me who copied it.-- Rectilinium ( talk) 00:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I wrote a section regarding flueless fires on the website http://www.flueless-fire.co.uk, i was using this to create a section on here but "For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted" Please accept that we give permission for this information to be used and i would appreciate if you could re-establish this post —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhalsted ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No idea where to put this. But I was told to leave a thing on your page to say that the duplicate found was not correct. thanks.
'tis transcluded. Time for weenies and marshmallows.— Kww( talk) 22:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I am the author of the Tsolomitis wiki page which you just deleted.
I am compiling all my family history and the wiki page you just deleted because of copyright violations is in fact incorrect.
The website that the information came from is in fact run by my family and i have permission to compile (as in directly copy all text) into a wiki page which is what you call copyright infringement even though the text, website and everything else associated with it is the sole property of my family.
James geortsis (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Signed By James Tsolomitis Geortsis —Preceding unsigned comment added by James geortsis ( talk • contribs)
The content of this page are written by Michael Gruneberg, who also wrote the contents of the pages on the Linkwordlanguages website. He is the copyright holder of both texts so there is no breach of copyright on either entry Michael Gruneberg Librarydeal ( talk) 10:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It is right that the text is quite the same. They acctually took it from www.iaeste.org/jump which is the original and all typed by me. So I have the copyright. I wanted to add more text, so please to not delete the page.... Thanks for the support! Aekeller ( talk) 18:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Coren (cross posting from Roger's talk page because you implemented the block), curious about this edit. Looking through the user's edits I agree the portion that pertains to Scientology is cause for concern. That said, it is unprecedented (to the best of my knowledge) to indefinitely block someone preemptively in that manner, without arbitration vote at the proposed decision, without an outing or legal threat or other user action that would compel immediate response. He does edit productively to other areas (most recently the copyfraud article, etc.), and he has indeed participated to this case, although before he was named as a party. From this vantage it could very well appear that he foresaw no further need to post, or (at worst) anticipated a topic ban proposal. Could you explain, please? Durova Charge! 04:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
That said, the reason I made the block is a fundamentally principled one: a community effort like Wikipedia functions because of the social contact to heed and follow the basic rules of conduct that constitute our framework. We routinely block editors when it becomes obvious that they are unable or unwilling to abide those rules; and I can think of no clearer and less ambiguous evidence than an explicit refusal to agree to them (even when it was poorly worded as a pseudolegal disclaimer).
Ultimately, what Wikipedia has as "terms of service" is the amalgamation of policies, guidelines and community expectations; Fahrenheit451 is correct, at least, in that he is in no way obligated to agree to them— but then all that is left to him is the right to leave. Now, of course, if I have misunderstood his refusal, or if he wishes to withdraw it, then I will be more than glad to unblock him (noting, however, that the arbitration case will proceed with him as a named party regardless of his decision in the matter).
I'll not argue that this position is a bit more... hardline than traditional. But I see this declaration of his in exactly the same way that I would see someone stating outright that they will ignore WP:V, or that they will sock around a block— and those also traditionally have led to swift, immediate blocks. — Coren (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
As for the substance of the block: I disagree with you completely. If an editor states "I don't want to follow your rules", then the only proper response is "Don't let the door hit you on the way out". We are too big, and have too much work keeping the encyclopedia running as smoothly as it is, to take on the malcontents and protesters. We extend every courtesy and every effort to allow people the benefit of the doubt when they are disruptive— in the hope that they do not understand the rules. Someone that doesn't want to play nice? Internet is big enough that they can find some other occupation elsewhere.
The block is good, and IMO more blocks like this should be given out. I'm not going to unblock; but if you feel this requires the wider review of a noticeboard, then I'm not going to stop you. — Coren (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Coren, I have never seen anything like this during arbitration before. Fahrenheit451 had over 6000 edits, was not an SPA, and did nothing worse than civilly decline to give further evidence in a case where s/he had already participated. Even disruptive SPAs don't get indeffed while arbitration is ongoing unless, like Ilena of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal case, they do something that would be indeffable under any circumstances (in her case outing another editor's real identity). At worst, Fahrenheit451 could be called uncooperative, and as such the remedies when they were posted and voted upon might go a bit harsher than otherwise. This is an unprecedented grab for autocratic power by an arbitrator and I must oppose it. Election to the Committee does not elevate you above the norms of this website. Durova Charge! 15:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, well then Kirill, look at it this way: it happens that I am a named party to the current case as well. And I don't think I have to give any more evidence either. For all I know the Committee might enter a remedy on me too (although it hasn't happened either, I can't read your minds). So I invoke whatever rationale Fahrenheit451 was citing: note that neither Fahrenheit451 nor I say anything about what we might do if these supposed rights are violated. Now if you intend to indef me for this post, please wait half an hour. I'm uploading a restoration of an Easter egg roll at the White House lawn from 1911 while we discuss this, and I'd like to get it nominated at FPC in time for the holiday. Might take a bit longer to straighten out if you truly do see any threat in this statement. Regards, Durova Charge! 16:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Fellows, this isn't even a threat:
That's all he said; be reasonable about it. Durova Charge! 17:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
← I've pasted this discussion to AN for broader input. Xavexgoem ( talk) 18:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I take it you'll be unsurprised when your bot is blocked for talking about violations of copyright law, then? After all, it is saying that it wants X [deletion of the article] to happen according to some law. -- Random832 ( contribs) 12:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. or maybe someone should just block the next person to attach {{ GFDL}} to an image upload - that's legalese, right? -- Random832 ( contribs) 12:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have removed Coren's "duplicate article" tag from Direct-coupled because I don't think it is relevant to a disambig page. Biscuittin ( talk) 17:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed User:SkyWriter's block. It was based on NLT. He has stated "I've threatened no legal action". I believe this can be taken as a "rescinded" legal threat, or the absence of one to begin with. The NLT page states "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." As he has stated that he does not intend to pursue any legal recourse, may his NLT block be removed? Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I was with family over easter. Give me a few to catch up and I'll respond. — Coren (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the bot is editing from an IP. – Toon (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
== Help with
== Hi I can't seem the get the standard
to appear on the page P=NP Proof. MY problem is the article already contains built in noted citations arranged such a way that they demonstrate the computability of the work. How do I then arrange to prevent the P=NP Solution and P=NP Proof articles up to code? Can you tell me why it's flagged maybe or help me out here. I am really working at this and have the sources to prove it. Just having a little problem with our temperment at this beloved Wiki. Floing99 ( talk) 09:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
<AOL voice>You've got mail!</AOL voice> -- Vassyana ( talk) 16:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I am the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences. JASSP is an Open Access Publication and some of the text used for the Wikipedia Articles was taken from the JASSP web-site http://www.jassp.org . That is ok since I have the permission of the Editorial Board to do so. I have also added serveral references to show that the Journal is a legitimate publication. Just in case I will add more to this discussion page: Intute Best of the Web: http://www.intute.ac.uk/socialsciences/cgi-bin/fullrecord.pl?handle=20090107-1428075 Southern Perspectives: http://www.southernperspectives.net/book/journal-of-alternative-perspectives-in-the-social-sciences Georgetown Library: http://library.georgetown.edu/newjour/j/msg04893.html Red de Jovenes Investigadores en Filosofia: http://www.redjif.org/red/index.php?option=com_resource&controller=article&article=252&category_id=51&Itemid=116 Peter Scott's Library Blog: http://xrefer.blogspot.com/2008/12/journal-of-alternative-perspectives-in.html Criss Library Focus On Online: http://focusononline.blogspot.com/2008/12/journal-of-alternative-perspectives-in.html E-Journals.org: http://www.e-journals.org/ Open Access News: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/12/new-oa-social-science-journal.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by VonFeigenblatt ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
See ANI#Repeated unilateral re-creation of deleted article. The article would have been speedily deleted without the copyright issues. — SlamDiego ←T 10:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've transferred the information from Kohaku (Nishiki Koi), as it was a mispelling. Appropriate redirect and notes in Talk sections have been added. Aquafanatic ( talk) 06:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting my talkpage. I guess I'm the easiest target so he started with me first. Is there any way for me to see what was written? I'd like to know if he was right or not. I don't know, maybe e-mail me the text or something. I'd like to have an idea of how close he was. Again, thanks for the help. Padillah ( talk) 12:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you look into the issues involving these bot messages on my talk page copied to User talk:Tinucherian/Boterrors. for example the bot misunderstands Sirigere and Kondlahalli are both the same. Kindly do something about this asap. Atleast disable this for articles created by me ( for timebeing) as I am in the process of creating article stubs for the highly populated villages in India. Thanks for the understanding -- Tinu Cherian - 11:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
(I've put this into a section, put the original post back in, and reorganised so it makes some kind of sense Chzz ► )
Dear Coren: my name is Peter and I am trying to create the page North East Chinese Basketball League. The writing regarding the NECBL you see from http://udel.edu/stu-org/ccd/index.html is my writing since I was the founder for that organization, China Club of Delaware. If you ask the current president Wenxiao Li (allenli@udel.edu | 302 419 ) or the Previous President Quan Deng ( dengquan@udel.edu ) - they can all testify that the writing is mine, Peter Ran (peterran@udel.edu). I am the Founder of China Club and also Founder + Organizer of the NECBL . I can provide emails and phone numbers of all the team captains / participants in order to prove that the written material is mine. Kind regards, Peter Ran 267 455 5443 Confucius7 ( talk) 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
hope you're good - I noticed the broo ha ha around the indef. blocks and legal threat stuff re: Skywriter and Alistair (please review that block asap, by the way!) - and thought you might like to know that I mentioned it over at wikipedia review, where I believe you comment occasionally? I'm afraid I described the events as bungling, and I mentioned that you had been a boob. My central point really though is my belief that culturally 'over here' on wikipedia, we should be far more critical of mistakes such as yours in indef. blocking a valuable user. I think a high bar is important, and I think you slipped well below it on this occasion. cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 22:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
< heh - well that's confused me, because as others have noted both at the RfAr page, on the noticeboard, and on my talk page, it doesn't seem to be an arb matter? Regardless, I hope you'll be up for explaining your block rationale, and your opinions as to the best next steps (as the blocking admin) in reasonably short order - I think that would help.. cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 03:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
As for the rationale for the block, I had expected it to be fairly clear already and there is no particular secret: his publisher had resumed the same legal threatening once Alistair got blocked, using much of the same rationale and wording, and we have not considered protestations that the actions are independent to be very credible. Until matters are resolved satisfactorily so that neither Alastair or his business partners continue with the legal posturing, it is best to maintain the status-quo. — Coren (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
< 4 days slipping by... please update urgently. Privatemusings ( talk) 00:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussions about the proper solution to this matter are taking longer than I (or anyone else) would have expected. Coordinating 16 arbs is surprisingly difficult. Given the duration, and the timing of the email vs. Alastair's reputiation, I'm going to extend good faith to him by unblocking him. I'll comment further on his talk page. — Coren (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
...or have all the copyright infringers finally got the message? contribs. – Toon (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
This is my own website and the article is origin from me. Base Lending Rate
Malaysiablr ( talk) 17:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Malaysiablr ( talk) 17:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but on the message your bot left me it said to do so. It confused Kreisliga Pfalz with Kreisliga Württemberg, which is quite easy to do as their are both part of a set of 10 articles about regional Southern German football leagues from the early 1920s. I don't think, your bots running wild, its just a little confused, thats all. Have fun, EA210269 ( talk) 16:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I see that you take the position here that "When you state that you want X to happen or not to happen according to some law (now matter how incorrect your understanding of the applicability of said law is), then you are necessarily stating that legal action will be forthcoming unless you get the desired compliance." I wonder if you would then be ready to lead the way by stating formally and for the record that you personally abjure all your own legal rights with respect to your work on Wikipedia? Elanthia ( talk) 17:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Er... you do realize that the Constitution of the United States has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia, don't you? It's a (very nicely done, for the most part) document that constructs and delimits the powers of the US Government— which is all good but provides neither rights nor obligations towards or in regards an internet encyclopedia.
To illustrate, the right to not incriminate oneself (which is probably the part of the fifth amendment you were referring to) has nothing to do with ArbCom proceedings; it protects you during criminal prosecution by your government. Last I checked, we are not a criminal court and we can compel you to testify against yourself, presume your guilt, or have no process whatsoever. As a matter of basic fairness, we normally don't act like jackasses, but the US Constitution has nothing to do with it and no influence or significance here. — Coren (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
... err, "You have the right to be eaten by a bear?" :-) — Coren (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
In practice, everyone tries in good faith to be fair, sensible and reasonable— but any similarity to bills of rights or constitutive documents is strictly coincidental. — Coren (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Karel Lomecky and Ludvík Klíma competed together and won a bronze medal in the K-4 1000 m event at the 1948 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships. You expect some of this information to be copied if they won only one medal in the same event at the same championships. I think your bot is a little bit too sensitive on these things. Chris ( talk) 14:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Coren, I have reason to believe that you have abused your administrative privileges by blocking me. Do you care to remedy that? If so, what do you propose?-- Fahrenheit451 ( talk) 01:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I propose that you remove the wrongful block from the block log, or see to it that it is removed if you do not have tools to do so. -- Fahrenheit451 ( talk) 06:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
As for the substance of the block, and despite the fact that it has been lifted because of some ambiguity in your statement coupled with copious amounts of good faith towards you, it was still justified. Your statement was:
So, strictly speaking, I don't even agree that the block should have been lifted at all. —
Coren
(talk)
14:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
* That the legal theory in question is completely illusory and based on misunderstandings of commerce laws common to tax protesters is immaterial to the fact that it still is a legal theory.
Within the realm of the possible, however, I can offer to make an annotation in your block log stating that you did not indent, or no longer intend, any sort of legal threat. That would, obviously, require that you actually state so unequivocally. — Coren (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Coren, it is clear from my statement that there was no legal threat. You abused your administrative power in blocking me. Please do not attempt to intellectualize or justify what you did. Take credit for it. I refused the contract of being a party to the ArbCom and still refuse said contract. Your speculations about my statement are entirely irrelevant. I asked for a remedy. If you do not care to provide it, I will escalate this matter to the Wikimedia Foundation. -- Fahrenheit451 ( talk) 23:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, your bot seems to be tagging some of the fungus stubs I'm creating. It is true that I am using information from the 2007 Outline of Ascomycota site, but I'm just copying the fungus name, and the names of the authorities and placing them in the proper slots in the taxobox. As far as I know, a fungus name and the names of the people who discovered them cannot possible be copyright. Any chance of tweaking the bot so I don't have to constantly remove the tags from the stubs and my talk page? Thanks Sasata ( talk) 03:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Shahidul Islam(b ~1977) is an Indian journalist for urdu. He is the News Editor of Hindustan Express. His columns appear regularly on front page known by Barjasta. These are syndicated to several newspapers, including The Qaumi Awaz,Qaumi Tanzeem(Patna+Ranchi)Etemaaddaily(Hyderabad),Munsif,Inquilab etc India and alqamar online newspaper of Pakistan.
Biography
Shahidul Islam was born in Bihar on January 25th, 1977. He graduated with an MA in Urdu from T.M.Bhagalpur University in Bihar. Shahidul islams's father Syed Md.Ali by professon a Doctor.He is related to the Sufi-ism hero Shaikh Sultan Alaihirrahmah,who was khalifa of Hazrat mujaddid Alifsani Rahmatullah Alaih Sarhindi from his father's side.
Career
Shahidul islam began his journalist career in Munger(Bihar) with the Qaumi Tanzeem as a Districtt Corresspondent /journalist with the Patriot in 1995. Later he also worked as a incharge of Qaumi Tanzeem,Ranchi and Spesial correspondent for Aalami Sahara. He has received journalistic award from Khanquah-e-shahbazia,Bhagal pur in 2004.
Writing style Shahidul Islam a has been noted to have socialist view point and always critcise governmentl openions about Indian Muslims . Many of his articles criticise government policy, and generally reflect pro-minority, secular and feminist slants. HE has lashed out at many influential sections of the political spectrum. he has defended Indian Muslims against the charge of being anti-national and pro-Pakistani.
Two articles have been listed on WP:SCV as possible copies, but the original pages don't exist. One is Edib Kürkçü [3], which may be possible if the bot has access to deleted pages or an old version of the database (assuming this is what has happened, I tagged it for speedy deletion); the other is St Valentines Massacre, where the link is broken as it contains "'" [4]: replacing this with an apostrophe (either type) both have been redirects to Saint Valentine's Day massacre (a completely different article about a different subject) since 2007 so I don't know where the text found by CorenSearchBot could be from - unfortunately the bot doesn't mention the page or revision ID. — Snigbrook 21:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Content in The Isles Internationale Université (European Union) website, reproduced within the article's content is considered as open access or public domain content; it belongs to the IIU Press and Reserach Centre AC, which I represent, therefore I am fully entitled to donate this content to Wikipedia.-- Jose Carlos Arias ( talk) 08:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Coren, I've just seen your comment on the A/E requests page. In this case, Thomas Basboll and Jehochman have actually quite diffent POVs on the issue. -- Cs32en ( talk) 04:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
My article was marked because I ignorantly copied some text from my own website to the Wikipedia article I created. Please tell me what else to do to avoid deletion.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmontala ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
OK Coren, thanks. Can I see the deleted article? Mmontala ( talk) 00:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I got this message while trying to post a new page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Piera):
The CorenSearchBot has performed a web search with the contents of this page, and it appears to include a substantial copy of: http://openlibrary.org/a/OL5861311A?m=view&v=3
I wrote the article in Open Library and thought it would be good to add it here. I have also translated the original Spanish Wikipedia site for Julia Piera (
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Piera) which I also created and maintain.
Please advise.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
I created this page modeled on another one (Saint-Evariste-de-Forsyth) that your bot confused as the same. I verified the content on both and everything should be alright. -- Andy28203 ( talk) 02:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
All I'm making is a collection of small stubs, but they're legit. -- User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 00:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI: I have filed a request for arbitration regarding recent bans of user accounts from which no activities could be found that dispupt Wikipedia. The arbitration request can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Block of editors related to sockpuppet Jvolkblum You are not mentioned as an involved party, I send you this message for your information. I hope that your opinion there can contribute to solve the issue. Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 22:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm dealing with what seems to me to be a WP:BLP issue at Oxford English Limited. (There was an OTRS letter about it this morning, but not complaining of BLP.) I found a fair amount of unsourced, mostly nonsense but to me troublesome text including allegations like, "The sexual politics of the group was bizarre. One female undergraduate had to organise a complaint from the girls at Wadham College regarding the crepuscular activities of its cult leaders" (which certainly smacks of sexual harassment allegations). I removed the text, which has now been restored twice by one contributor, who may or may not be the registered counterpart of the IP that originally added it. He indicates that sources are forthcoming. I've opened a ticket at BLPN, here, but am wondering if I should just protect the article pending resolution. I've only played the BLP card once, really, and would prefer not to overuse it, but this material is really perplexing me. The text is just so bizarre that if it hadn't been placed on March 29th, I'd be looking around for Ashton Kutcher. If you have time and inclination, could you give me a second administrator opinion? I'm inclined to think that the material needs to stay out pending consensus at BLPN (typically slow-going), but don't want to protect the article or otherwise use admin tools if it doesn't look as much of a concern to others as it does to me...especially since I've been taking care of my post-operative husband for days now, and am pretty sleep-deprived. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I received this message:
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Second lining, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.nojazzfest.com/chat/archive/index.php/t-1731.html.
The article Second lining is not new. I just moved the article from Second line to a newly created page named Second lining to be able to redirect Second line to a disambiguation page. If the content really was copied... it was not me who copied it.-- Rectilinium ( talk) 00:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I wrote a section regarding flueless fires on the website http://www.flueless-fire.co.uk, i was using this to create a section on here but "For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted" Please accept that we give permission for this information to be used and i would appreciate if you could re-establish this post —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhalsted ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
No idea where to put this. But I was told to leave a thing on your page to say that the duplicate found was not correct. thanks.
'tis transcluded. Time for weenies and marshmallows.— Kww( talk) 22:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I am the author of the Tsolomitis wiki page which you just deleted.
I am compiling all my family history and the wiki page you just deleted because of copyright violations is in fact incorrect.
The website that the information came from is in fact run by my family and i have permission to compile (as in directly copy all text) into a wiki page which is what you call copyright infringement even though the text, website and everything else associated with it is the sole property of my family.
James geortsis (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Signed By James Tsolomitis Geortsis —Preceding unsigned comment added by James geortsis ( talk • contribs)
The content of this page are written by Michael Gruneberg, who also wrote the contents of the pages on the Linkwordlanguages website. He is the copyright holder of both texts so there is no breach of copyright on either entry Michael Gruneberg Librarydeal ( talk) 10:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It is right that the text is quite the same. They acctually took it from www.iaeste.org/jump which is the original and all typed by me. So I have the copyright. I wanted to add more text, so please to not delete the page.... Thanks for the support! Aekeller ( talk) 18:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Coren (cross posting from Roger's talk page because you implemented the block), curious about this edit. Looking through the user's edits I agree the portion that pertains to Scientology is cause for concern. That said, it is unprecedented (to the best of my knowledge) to indefinitely block someone preemptively in that manner, without arbitration vote at the proposed decision, without an outing or legal threat or other user action that would compel immediate response. He does edit productively to other areas (most recently the copyfraud article, etc.), and he has indeed participated to this case, although before he was named as a party. From this vantage it could very well appear that he foresaw no further need to post, or (at worst) anticipated a topic ban proposal. Could you explain, please? Durova Charge! 04:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
That said, the reason I made the block is a fundamentally principled one: a community effort like Wikipedia functions because of the social contact to heed and follow the basic rules of conduct that constitute our framework. We routinely block editors when it becomes obvious that they are unable or unwilling to abide those rules; and I can think of no clearer and less ambiguous evidence than an explicit refusal to agree to them (even when it was poorly worded as a pseudolegal disclaimer).
Ultimately, what Wikipedia has as "terms of service" is the amalgamation of policies, guidelines and community expectations; Fahrenheit451 is correct, at least, in that he is in no way obligated to agree to them— but then all that is left to him is the right to leave. Now, of course, if I have misunderstood his refusal, or if he wishes to withdraw it, then I will be more than glad to unblock him (noting, however, that the arbitration case will proceed with him as a named party regardless of his decision in the matter).
I'll not argue that this position is a bit more... hardline than traditional. But I see this declaration of his in exactly the same way that I would see someone stating outright that they will ignore WP:V, or that they will sock around a block— and those also traditionally have led to swift, immediate blocks. — Coren (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
As for the substance of the block: I disagree with you completely. If an editor states "I don't want to follow your rules", then the only proper response is "Don't let the door hit you on the way out". We are too big, and have too much work keeping the encyclopedia running as smoothly as it is, to take on the malcontents and protesters. We extend every courtesy and every effort to allow people the benefit of the doubt when they are disruptive— in the hope that they do not understand the rules. Someone that doesn't want to play nice? Internet is big enough that they can find some other occupation elsewhere.
The block is good, and IMO more blocks like this should be given out. I'm not going to unblock; but if you feel this requires the wider review of a noticeboard, then I'm not going to stop you. — Coren (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Coren, I have never seen anything like this during arbitration before. Fahrenheit451 had over 6000 edits, was not an SPA, and did nothing worse than civilly decline to give further evidence in a case where s/he had already participated. Even disruptive SPAs don't get indeffed while arbitration is ongoing unless, like Ilena of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal case, they do something that would be indeffable under any circumstances (in her case outing another editor's real identity). At worst, Fahrenheit451 could be called uncooperative, and as such the remedies when they were posted and voted upon might go a bit harsher than otherwise. This is an unprecedented grab for autocratic power by an arbitrator and I must oppose it. Election to the Committee does not elevate you above the norms of this website. Durova Charge! 15:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, well then Kirill, look at it this way: it happens that I am a named party to the current case as well. And I don't think I have to give any more evidence either. For all I know the Committee might enter a remedy on me too (although it hasn't happened either, I can't read your minds). So I invoke whatever rationale Fahrenheit451 was citing: note that neither Fahrenheit451 nor I say anything about what we might do if these supposed rights are violated. Now if you intend to indef me for this post, please wait half an hour. I'm uploading a restoration of an Easter egg roll at the White House lawn from 1911 while we discuss this, and I'd like to get it nominated at FPC in time for the holiday. Might take a bit longer to straighten out if you truly do see any threat in this statement. Regards, Durova Charge! 16:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Fellows, this isn't even a threat:
That's all he said; be reasonable about it. Durova Charge! 17:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
← I've pasted this discussion to AN for broader input. Xavexgoem ( talk) 18:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I take it you'll be unsurprised when your bot is blocked for talking about violations of copyright law, then? After all, it is saying that it wants X [deletion of the article] to happen according to some law. -- Random832 ( contribs) 12:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. or maybe someone should just block the next person to attach {{ GFDL}} to an image upload - that's legalese, right? -- Random832 ( contribs) 12:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have removed Coren's "duplicate article" tag from Direct-coupled because I don't think it is relevant to a disambig page. Biscuittin ( talk) 17:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed User:SkyWriter's block. It was based on NLT. He has stated "I've threatened no legal action". I believe this can be taken as a "rescinded" legal threat, or the absence of one to begin with. The NLT page states "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." As he has stated that he does not intend to pursue any legal recourse, may his NLT block be removed? Ottava Rima ( talk) 02:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I was with family over easter. Give me a few to catch up and I'll respond. — Coren (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the bot is editing from an IP. – Toon (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
== Help with
== Hi I can't seem the get the standard
to appear on the page P=NP Proof. MY problem is the article already contains built in noted citations arranged such a way that they demonstrate the computability of the work. How do I then arrange to prevent the P=NP Solution and P=NP Proof articles up to code? Can you tell me why it's flagged maybe or help me out here. I am really working at this and have the sources to prove it. Just having a little problem with our temperment at this beloved Wiki. Floing99 ( talk) 09:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
<AOL voice>You've got mail!</AOL voice> -- Vassyana ( talk) 16:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I am the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences. JASSP is an Open Access Publication and some of the text used for the Wikipedia Articles was taken from the JASSP web-site http://www.jassp.org . That is ok since I have the permission of the Editorial Board to do so. I have also added serveral references to show that the Journal is a legitimate publication. Just in case I will add more to this discussion page: Intute Best of the Web: http://www.intute.ac.uk/socialsciences/cgi-bin/fullrecord.pl?handle=20090107-1428075 Southern Perspectives: http://www.southernperspectives.net/book/journal-of-alternative-perspectives-in-the-social-sciences Georgetown Library: http://library.georgetown.edu/newjour/j/msg04893.html Red de Jovenes Investigadores en Filosofia: http://www.redjif.org/red/index.php?option=com_resource&controller=article&article=252&category_id=51&Itemid=116 Peter Scott's Library Blog: http://xrefer.blogspot.com/2008/12/journal-of-alternative-perspectives-in.html Criss Library Focus On Online: http://focusononline.blogspot.com/2008/12/journal-of-alternative-perspectives-in.html E-Journals.org: http://www.e-journals.org/ Open Access News: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/12/new-oa-social-science-journal.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by VonFeigenblatt ( talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
See ANI#Repeated unilateral re-creation of deleted article. The article would have been speedily deleted without the copyright issues. — SlamDiego ←T 10:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've transferred the information from Kohaku (Nishiki Koi), as it was a mispelling. Appropriate redirect and notes in Talk sections have been added. Aquafanatic ( talk) 06:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting my talkpage. I guess I'm the easiest target so he started with me first. Is there any way for me to see what was written? I'd like to know if he was right or not. I don't know, maybe e-mail me the text or something. I'd like to have an idea of how close he was. Again, thanks for the help. Padillah ( talk) 12:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you look into the issues involving these bot messages on my talk page copied to User talk:Tinucherian/Boterrors. for example the bot misunderstands Sirigere and Kondlahalli are both the same. Kindly do something about this asap. Atleast disable this for articles created by me ( for timebeing) as I am in the process of creating article stubs for the highly populated villages in India. Thanks for the understanding -- Tinu Cherian - 11:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
(I've put this into a section, put the original post back in, and reorganised so it makes some kind of sense Chzz ► )
Dear Coren: my name is Peter and I am trying to create the page North East Chinese Basketball League. The writing regarding the NECBL you see from http://udel.edu/stu-org/ccd/index.html is my writing since I was the founder for that organization, China Club of Delaware. If you ask the current president Wenxiao Li (allenli@udel.edu | 302 419 ) or the Previous President Quan Deng ( dengquan@udel.edu ) - they can all testify that the writing is mine, Peter Ran (peterran@udel.edu). I am the Founder of China Club and also Founder + Organizer of the NECBL . I can provide emails and phone numbers of all the team captains / participants in order to prove that the written material is mine. Kind regards, Peter Ran 267 455 5443 Confucius7 ( talk) 01:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
hope you're good - I noticed the broo ha ha around the indef. blocks and legal threat stuff re: Skywriter and Alistair (please review that block asap, by the way!) - and thought you might like to know that I mentioned it over at wikipedia review, where I believe you comment occasionally? I'm afraid I described the events as bungling, and I mentioned that you had been a boob. My central point really though is my belief that culturally 'over here' on wikipedia, we should be far more critical of mistakes such as yours in indef. blocking a valuable user. I think a high bar is important, and I think you slipped well below it on this occasion. cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 22:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
< heh - well that's confused me, because as others have noted both at the RfAr page, on the noticeboard, and on my talk page, it doesn't seem to be an arb matter? Regardless, I hope you'll be up for explaining your block rationale, and your opinions as to the best next steps (as the blocking admin) in reasonably short order - I think that would help.. cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 03:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
As for the rationale for the block, I had expected it to be fairly clear already and there is no particular secret: his publisher had resumed the same legal threatening once Alistair got blocked, using much of the same rationale and wording, and we have not considered protestations that the actions are independent to be very credible. Until matters are resolved satisfactorily so that neither Alastair or his business partners continue with the legal posturing, it is best to maintain the status-quo. — Coren (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
< 4 days slipping by... please update urgently. Privatemusings ( talk) 00:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussions about the proper solution to this matter are taking longer than I (or anyone else) would have expected. Coordinating 16 arbs is surprisingly difficult. Given the duration, and the timing of the email vs. Alastair's reputiation, I'm going to extend good faith to him by unblocking him. I'll comment further on his talk page. — Coren (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
...or have all the copyright infringers finally got the message? contribs. – Toon (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
This is my own website and the article is origin from me. Base Lending Rate
Malaysiablr ( talk) 17:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Malaysiablr ( talk) 17:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but on the message your bot left me it said to do so. It confused Kreisliga Pfalz with Kreisliga Württemberg, which is quite easy to do as their are both part of a set of 10 articles about regional Southern German football leagues from the early 1920s. I don't think, your bots running wild, its just a little confused, thats all. Have fun, EA210269 ( talk) 16:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I see that you take the position here that "When you state that you want X to happen or not to happen according to some law (now matter how incorrect your understanding of the applicability of said law is), then you are necessarily stating that legal action will be forthcoming unless you get the desired compliance." I wonder if you would then be ready to lead the way by stating formally and for the record that you personally abjure all your own legal rights with respect to your work on Wikipedia? Elanthia ( talk) 17:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Er... you do realize that the Constitution of the United States has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia, don't you? It's a (very nicely done, for the most part) document that constructs and delimits the powers of the US Government— which is all good but provides neither rights nor obligations towards or in regards an internet encyclopedia.
To illustrate, the right to not incriminate oneself (which is probably the part of the fifth amendment you were referring to) has nothing to do with ArbCom proceedings; it protects you during criminal prosecution by your government. Last I checked, we are not a criminal court and we can compel you to testify against yourself, presume your guilt, or have no process whatsoever. As a matter of basic fairness, we normally don't act like jackasses, but the US Constitution has nothing to do with it and no influence or significance here. — Coren (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
... err, "You have the right to be eaten by a bear?" :-) — Coren (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
In practice, everyone tries in good faith to be fair, sensible and reasonable— but any similarity to bills of rights or constitutive documents is strictly coincidental. — Coren (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Karel Lomecky and Ludvík Klíma competed together and won a bronze medal in the K-4 1000 m event at the 1948 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships. You expect some of this information to be copied if they won only one medal in the same event at the same championships. I think your bot is a little bit too sensitive on these things. Chris ( talk) 14:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Coren, I have reason to believe that you have abused your administrative privileges by blocking me. Do you care to remedy that? If so, what do you propose?-- Fahrenheit451 ( talk) 01:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I propose that you remove the wrongful block from the block log, or see to it that it is removed if you do not have tools to do so. -- Fahrenheit451 ( talk) 06:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
As for the substance of the block, and despite the fact that it has been lifted because of some ambiguity in your statement coupled with copious amounts of good faith towards you, it was still justified. Your statement was:
So, strictly speaking, I don't even agree that the block should have been lifted at all. —
Coren
(talk)
14:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
* That the legal theory in question is completely illusory and based on misunderstandings of commerce laws common to tax protesters is immaterial to the fact that it still is a legal theory.
Within the realm of the possible, however, I can offer to make an annotation in your block log stating that you did not indent, or no longer intend, any sort of legal threat. That would, obviously, require that you actually state so unequivocally. — Coren (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Coren, it is clear from my statement that there was no legal threat. You abused your administrative power in blocking me. Please do not attempt to intellectualize or justify what you did. Take credit for it. I refused the contract of being a party to the ArbCom and still refuse said contract. Your speculations about my statement are entirely irrelevant. I asked for a remedy. If you do not care to provide it, I will escalate this matter to the Wikimedia Foundation. -- Fahrenheit451 ( talk) 23:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, your bot seems to be tagging some of the fungus stubs I'm creating. It is true that I am using information from the 2007 Outline of Ascomycota site, but I'm just copying the fungus name, and the names of the authorities and placing them in the proper slots in the taxobox. As far as I know, a fungus name and the names of the people who discovered them cannot possible be copyright. Any chance of tweaking the bot so I don't have to constantly remove the tags from the stubs and my talk page? Thanks Sasata ( talk) 03:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Shahidul Islam(b ~1977) is an Indian journalist for urdu. He is the News Editor of Hindustan Express. His columns appear regularly on front page known by Barjasta. These are syndicated to several newspapers, including The Qaumi Awaz,Qaumi Tanzeem(Patna+Ranchi)Etemaaddaily(Hyderabad),Munsif,Inquilab etc India and alqamar online newspaper of Pakistan.
Biography
Shahidul Islam was born in Bihar on January 25th, 1977. He graduated with an MA in Urdu from T.M.Bhagalpur University in Bihar. Shahidul islams's father Syed Md.Ali by professon a Doctor.He is related to the Sufi-ism hero Shaikh Sultan Alaihirrahmah,who was khalifa of Hazrat mujaddid Alifsani Rahmatullah Alaih Sarhindi from his father's side.
Career
Shahidul islam began his journalist career in Munger(Bihar) with the Qaumi Tanzeem as a Districtt Corresspondent /journalist with the Patriot in 1995. Later he also worked as a incharge of Qaumi Tanzeem,Ranchi and Spesial correspondent for Aalami Sahara. He has received journalistic award from Khanquah-e-shahbazia,Bhagal pur in 2004.
Writing style Shahidul Islam a has been noted to have socialist view point and always critcise governmentl openions about Indian Muslims . Many of his articles criticise government policy, and generally reflect pro-minority, secular and feminist slants. HE has lashed out at many influential sections of the political spectrum. he has defended Indian Muslims against the charge of being anti-national and pro-Pakistani.
Two articles have been listed on WP:SCV as possible copies, but the original pages don't exist. One is Edib Kürkçü [3], which may be possible if the bot has access to deleted pages or an old version of the database (assuming this is what has happened, I tagged it for speedy deletion); the other is St Valentines Massacre, where the link is broken as it contains "'" [4]: replacing this with an apostrophe (either type) both have been redirects to Saint Valentine's Day massacre (a completely different article about a different subject) since 2007 so I don't know where the text found by CorenSearchBot could be from - unfortunately the bot doesn't mention the page or revision ID. — Snigbrook 21:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Content in The Isles Internationale Université (European Union) website, reproduced within the article's content is considered as open access or public domain content; it belongs to the IIU Press and Reserach Centre AC, which I represent, therefore I am fully entitled to donate this content to Wikipedia.-- Jose Carlos Arias ( talk) 08:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Coren, I've just seen your comment on the A/E requests page. In this case, Thomas Basboll and Jehochman have actually quite diffent POVs on the issue. -- Cs32en ( talk) 04:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
My article was marked because I ignorantly copied some text from my own website to the Wikipedia article I created. Please tell me what else to do to avoid deletion.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmontala ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
OK Coren, thanks. Can I see the deleted article? Mmontala ( talk) 00:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I got this message while trying to post a new page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Piera):
The CorenSearchBot has performed a web search with the contents of this page, and it appears to include a substantial copy of: http://openlibrary.org/a/OL5861311A?m=view&v=3
I wrote the article in Open Library and thought it would be good to add it here. I have also translated the original Spanish Wikipedia site for Julia Piera (
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Piera) which I also created and maintain.
Please advise.