User talk:Coren/Archives/2009/March

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misha Quint Article

Hello: I have permission to use this information that are listed on these websites, as well as the images. How would I prove that? Would it be possible for me to list references for this material and keep it as is? I am new to Wikipedia. Sorry for the violation of policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llewcellist (talk • contribs) 23:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read the guide to requesting and formalizing permission to use copyrighted works on Wikipedia. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. — Coren (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm working on fixing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llewcellist (talk • contribs) 04:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey

If I apply to be an administrator do I manually post it to the Request for admin page


thanks --MyspaceMan12 (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as outlined in the instructions on the Requests for adminship page. However, I would recommend against applying so soon: the community generally expects an editor to have several months' experience and a few thousand edits before they apply, so that you have had a good opportunity to learn the ropes. — Coren (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Conomination?

Architectural design for a military aviary, c. 1889. From the days when high tech communication was birds.

Hi Coren, the other day I made the mistake of restoring an image before I really checked out how easy it would be to decipher. Translated captions are becoming standard at featured picture candidates these days, so this would stall without help from a native speaker. The handwriting is a bit hard for me to make out here. Got assistance from an anglophone Canadian, who agreed this is a toughie. Partial translation is already done. I'd conominate and share featured credit in return for the assistance. Interested? DurovaCharge! 03:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. It's slightly older french but I can parse all of it. Give me a few minutes to transcribe first then translate. — Coren (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's what we have so far. DurovaCharge! 04:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Guessed French Text (snipped)

I'll do you one better on that part:

Nota. L'hirondellier devant être facilement démontable, toutes les pièces de charpente au lieu d'être assemblées seront moisées. La partie hachurée de la coupe sera pleine. La vitrerie sera comprise dans toute la partie formant l'hirondellier proprement dit (2.80) et la couverture du dit où n'est que la partie formant lanterneau. Un tambour de 0m30 environ de profondeur sera menagé dans la partie indiquée au plan. Avec 2 portes de 0m60 environ formée de trillages en fil de fer et d'un chassis en fer.

Which translates to:

Note. Because the aviary requires easy dismantling, all carpentry pieces must be braced rather than assembled [with nails]. The hatched parts on the cross-section are to be in one piece. Glass windows will be inserted in the component forming the aviary proper (2.80), and the roof thereof, only where the lantern-shaped part is. A ring with a height of approximately 0m30 will be placed at the location indicated on the schematic. Includes two doors of approximately 0m60 made of iron wire mesh and an iron frame.

Don't hold me to this just yet, I haven't given up on the harder to read spot where writing overlaps on itself. — Coren (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm still unsure what the overwritten part says; and I doubt I'll be able to parse it without a different image. The month name at the bottom is also hard to decipher. To me, the letters could possibly be "jhu", "jru" or even possibly 'fru' — I expect some abbreviation of juillet or juin. The year is incompatible with the republican calendar so the latter is not possible. — Coren (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The above is the best quality translation I can give you from this source image. If you have the original handy, I might have an easier time reading through the obscured part (sometimes, noise that is visually distracting still conveys information that can help reading). The month is visually clear, but completely incomprehensible to me. January, February, June and July are the only reasonable possibilities because of the initial descender, with the latter two most likely. — Coren (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and as a last note, the captions read (translated) from the top left, "ELÉVATION" (elevation), "COUPE" (section), "PLAN" (plan view) and "Echelle 0m02 p.m." (Scale 0.02m per meter). — Coren (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Haven't forgotten you. Reading up on the man who inspired this, a DYK was absolutely necessary. You'll laugh. Jean Desbouvrie. DurovaCharge! 06:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Swallow aviary design waiting for your signature. :) DurovaCharge! 00:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Signed. It is a pretty diagram for a silly idea. :-) I'm going to add a translation note to the image, though. — Coren (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, I need some help on this - "problem"

Hi, I copied my own article written by me and pasted it into wikipedia and now it tells me that that was a copywrite violation.

I did not violate anything, that was my own article written from my own experience.

Please, how can I remove or correct the thing, because now it doesn't even let me to log in.

This is not OK - the process of creating pages and articles should be easier.

Sincerely Anatoly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.148.87 (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the guide to donating your own copyrighted material to Wikipedia. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. — Coren (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Please see my question here. Mike R (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete request

I didn't understand something about a speedy delete request being declined in your past. I don't really need or want to know more, but your name came to mind as I posting my first speedy delete request for something I hadn't myself created.

The technical issues of speedy deletion do not interest me -- but I feel compelled to become more familiar with issues having to do with Wikipedia as a battlefield. It bothers me to see Wikipedia articles used as a tool for forwarding a specific "pro-" or "anti-" position having to do with nation states. I don't even know how to put it into words yet -- but I know when something is amiss, even when I don't understand why or how or whatever-it-is-which causes me to feel increasing levels of alarm.

Mongolians are offended by an article title -- Mongolia during Tang rule. The article was created by a Chinese vandal; and I'm bothered by the fact that I didn't realize that it was vandalism until I'd invested a significant amount of time checking meaningless citations. I even went to the library to look at a book which said the opposite of what was claimed. No element of the vandals work had any redeeming quality save for the topic itself -- and an entirely new article has been created at Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The Mongolians want the title erased for reasons I don't have to understand. The participation in discussion threads has sufficiently garnered respect for a sensitivity I can't fathom.

You have expressed concern that a kind of pernicious nationalism is poisoning Wikipedia at a macro-level which needs to be addressed by Arbcom intervention. Much of that is beyond my ability to grasp, but I'm persuaded that I need to encouraging your efforts to deal with this issue.

My strategy involves reminding you of the consequences of an insidious problem which play out on a tiny scale like this one. It shouldn't matter that I'm not a Mongolian, but the fact is that it does in this context.

When you confront macro-level nationalism issues, please bear in mind that you are addressing an important issue with a host of unforeseen consequences. This investment of time and concern are well worth the inconvenience or annoyance you must deal with as well. --Tenmei (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an unavoidable consequence of Wikipedia's increased "respectability" and visibility. Ironically, the more accurate and reliable we become, the stronger the pressures to twist that reliability into supporting various points of view becomes — the effect of which you have witnessed firsthand. Because we are increasingly the first reference people look towards for an overview on mostly any topic, any group who feel they have a cause to represent will consider that making certain Wikipedia reflects "The Truth" is both a duty and an obligation. Nationalist and religious disputes tend to be the foremost amongst those because of the very high degree of fanaticism and zealotry those areas can generate — and the disputants are rarely tractable since all sides of the issue will perceive the others as vandals or worse since they are "obviously" trying to distort "The Truth".

Part of the reasons this problem is so difficult is that, fundamentally, everyone involved is convinced that they, and they alone, are trying to uphold neutrality. And administrator intervention is almost invariably viewed as biased (when not outright decried as being done by agents of the opposing side).

It's a hard problem, and there are no simple solutions in view. As the mandate progresses, I'll be attempting to make things more difficult for such point of view warriors— we cannot change them, but we can make the environment unattractive for such warring to take place. It will be a long haul fix because Wikipedia was founded on the principle that consensus will allow reaching neutrality; but that principle breaks down when extremist or zealous participants are involved (being unable or unwilling to compromise or see any deviation from their position as increasing bias and inaccuracy). — Coren (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I declare myself to be a zealot of the Church of WP:V. The sole tenant of my narrow-minded church involves dwelling on the first sentence on the page at WP:V:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth-— that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
This nuanced sentence re-invigorates my reliance on the distinction between a fact (as specifically clarified by WP:V and a mere factoid ... which is a very slender reed, but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, would things be that simple!  :-) The problem is that most any point of view can be made verifiable with the "right" sources; and it's trivial to conflate a minority viewpoint into The Truth if you put your back to it. This is why there is also WP:NPOV and WP:NOR to balance things out (or try to). Remember that no matter how arcane, how biased your point of view you can always find some sources that back it up. Left unchecked, WP:V on its own would destroy Wikipedia just as well as allowing random rants. — Coren (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignorance (band) vs Ignorance (folk punk band)

This was indeed a split, and I tried to indicate as much in the summary - apologies if I missed a keyword that would appease the bot. --AndrewHowse (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ablekuma South

I removed the tag as there is no error. I copied some material from Ablekum Central to speed up page creation.--Natsubee (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oversight access

You've got it! :) Regards, Dorgan (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you help me?

Would you, please remove my article together with my domain name in it? I wrote about it before - now I can't even log in.

Sincerely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.148.87 (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You'd need to tell me what article that is, specifically, otherwise I can't help you. — Coren (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

False Positive

Removed tag as I was splitting article. DragonZero (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Christos Kyrou - a bio

I have posted a short summary of my bio and I am receiving the following message:

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Christos Kyrou, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.american.edu/sis/faculty/facultybiographies/kyrou.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Since this is a biographic matterial it is inevitable that names and titles of institutions are similar with that bio that I have posted at my University. I have rewarded and revised my text and I hope it meets the requirements for posting.

Thank you for your consideration. Komos (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Peace Ecology - Notability Question

I have just posted an article on Peace Ecology. The term has been published as described in peer review articles and conference proceedings that are sited and linked to the article itself. Yet I still receive the following message:

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since March 2009. The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. Tagged since March 2009. It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since March 2009.

Any helpful advice?

Thank you Komos (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot False Positive

Reported [1] Hanner as an infringement of [2] - this site is scraping wikipedia content and copying us! Exxolon (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As a courtesy note, you are being discussed at ANI Coren. seicer | talk | contribs 23:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And here.... seicer | talk | contribs 23:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Based on the link http://plumbot.com/Corbin/Hanner.html, the page on plumbot.com should be a copy of Corbin/Hanner. I think when the dab page on Hanner was created on Wikipedia, the original page which has been crawled by Yahoo, caused a possible positive. Before CSBot had a chance to check it out, plumbot.com replaced the content about Corbin/Hanner with the new dab page. So it would appear that the live mirroring system used on plumbot.com has problems with / on article names (i.e. our page on "second" would always replace their content on "first/second"). Does this sound plausible? – Sadalmelik ☎ 08:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    Ooo! Sounds entirely reasonable, and removes at least two layers of confusion.  :-) Thanks for the excellent detective work. — Coren (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Substantial Copy Warning

About the warning on these articles:

This articles were taken from a site with the GFDL. I see that the CorenSearchBot searches the copyright on the same page of the article, but most of that sites, even with the copyright symbol, take the content from other sites. It's clear their not the owners of that article cause the site were the article is under the GFDL is much older than the copyrighted website. You see, I could have a site that's all copyrighted and may have the necessity to include a public article for useful information purposes. That doesn't mean that the article is now copyrighted, its just placed in a copyrighted website. Yeah, they should make a reference that its a public article but most of the times they don't.

Well, I hope you understand that the articles I published came from a site were there's a reference to GFDL and their older than those copyrighted websites, so that's why I think it prevails.

Thanks for your attention, André Andrett (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

ORDIFcommunication (d) 5 mars 2009 à 10h00 (CET)02/03/09 - ORDIF : Observatoire Régional des Déchets d'Ile-de-France / ORDIF Ile-de-France Region Waste Management Observatory

Permission to reproduce articles or images : http://www.ordif.com/public/rubrique.tpl?id=8981

permissions-fr@wikimedia.org : republication en instance, sur OTRS

De : Cédric Hédont [3] Envoyé : lundi 2 mars 2009 09:55 À : 'permissions-fr@wikimedia.org' Objet : Autorisation pour publier l'œuvre de l'ORDIF sous la licence libre GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License)

Links : - Wikipedia en Français : ORDIF - Observatoire Régional des Déchets d'Ile-de-France

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORDIF_-_Observatoire_R%C3%A9gional_des_D%C3%A9chets_d%27Ile-de-France

- Wikipedia in English : ORDIF Ile-de-France Region Waste Management Observatory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ORDIFcommunication

ORDIFcommunication (d) 5 mars 2009 à 10:00(CET)ORDIFcommunication (d) :Cédric Hédont, Responsable communication de l'ORDIF == —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

Cette permission est adéquate; faites-en note sur la page de discussion et vous pouvez enlever la notice sans problème. — Coren (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:WHEEL violation

According to WP:WHEEL and ArbCom precedence, it is not a WHEEL violation to unblock but it is one to reblock without community consensus and discussion. There was no such thing, which puts you in violation. ArbCom has allowed individuals making this mistake to correct it themselves and suffer no penalty. If you do not, I will be forced to take this matter to ArbCom. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should not undo other administrators' blocks without prior discussion" appears rather unambiguous to me. — Coren (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
This was one admin acting out against community consensus on a report that clearly belonged at Wikiquette and not ANI. The complaint that they acted on included declaring Malleus attacking the user for comments directed to -me-. Thus, Aitias was clearly in error. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's ridiculous, Ottava Rima. The unblock was abusive, as the unblocking admin has just admitted at their talk page. — Aitias // discussion 01:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like formally to request that you reconsider this long block of a productive, if uncivil, editor, which seems to me to be punitive rather than preventive. I have not been involved with this dispute but have interacted with Malleus previously. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I think no one should do anything until there's consensus on AN/I. Majorly talk 01:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
At this point. Espresso Addict, please consider me neutral on the propriety of the block. I believe that the blocking admin is discussing this on AN/I as we speak, and that a compromise is in the works. — Coren (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
(To Majorly) I doubt there will ever be consensus at AN/I on this point. Meanwhile, someone I genuinely consider a valuable contributor is being driven away from the project because of some ill-tempered remarks. Sure, he shouldn't have made them, but I get the impression Malleus baiting is becoming a bit of a sport around some quarters. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Where do you get that impression? He brings it on himself by making the comments in the first place. Majorly talk 01:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Equazcion appears to be the latest person to be needlessly bating. Nev1 (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response, Coren. I agree it would be better if the original blocking admin were to reconsider. I do hope AN/I can come up with a compromise; in my experience it's better at escalating conflict than defusing it. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
(To Majorly) I get the impression what often happens is that an admin makes a comment that can be (mis)interpreted as arrogant, Malleus jumps in and assumes the worst, a whole bunch of admins jump in waving big sticks telling him that his comments are uncivil when simply ignoring them would be the wise course of action, and then everything escalates. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Coren, I support your unblock, but I maybe misunderstood your comment on the AN/I page. To me it seems that you are saying that you took on your Arbitrator role for that re-block. I don't think that should be necessary at all, as it was a good decision that shouldn't have required more than an admin bit for support ...unfortunately the way WP:WHEEL is interpreted currently, it creates the situation where the unblocking admin hold all the cards, and no matter how illogical or out-of-process the unblock was, to re-block would be a worse sin. This situation often rewards the unblocker who acts rashly, so I'm heartened by the fact that you see that the lack of notification of the unblock was unacceptable. Cheers... Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you pretty much explain clearly why I chose to wear the arbitrator cloak while doing that administrative action; I wanted it to be completely clear that I wasn't feeding a circle of wheel warring but undoing a rash unblock that would have been likely to. This is also why I have been careful to take no position on the propriety of the original block, nor engage into further discussion about the possibility of an in-process block alteration. You might say this was an administrative act accompanied by an arbitrator stating sternly "Don't have done that, and nobody else should either." — Coren (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Furniture Bank article

I received feedback on my new article that it copied the text on website "www.furniturebanks.org". I am the author and maintainer of the furniturebanks.org website, and therefore there is no copyright or plagerism issue. I am new to Wikipedia, this is my first submission. I appreciate any help you can provide.

Swingslide (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For all your hard work in helping the site a better, more welcoming environment. Your ArbCom work thus far has been outstanding, and I sincerely regret opposing you. Keep up the good work - you're a fantastic arb. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, accolades are always appreciated. But you really needn't feel bad for opposing— you voted according to what you felt was best at the time as everyone must. That you preferred others for the role is entirely legitimate and I bear no resentment to those who felt opposing me was best. — Coren (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I opposed you based on a comment that I felt escalated drama on AN/I, but it turns out it wasn't actually you who made the comment. At this point, I am very confident in your ArbCom presence. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
An ever better reason to not hold grudges, wouldn't you say?  :-) — Coren (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Now who says I hold grudges? Master&Expert (Talk) 06:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I meant me. The possibility of simple error is all the more reason for me to not take oppositions as offensive.  :-) — Coren (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

About Mojo (African American culture)

I think it's rather the site which you have cited os victim of copyrigh violation who has copied material from Wikipedia, I have done nothing but renamiin the old Mojo entry to Mojo (African American culture) without adding any material. --Khalid hassani (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, CSBot only tags new pages— that means that you didn't rename the article by moving it, but by copying its contents (which is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright). I'll go fix. — Coren (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Bhamwiki

  • This bot tagged Andy Andrews as a possible copyvio from Bhamwiki.com. Bhamwiki is published under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license which is compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL as long as the source is credited. (Details)--Dystopos (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
T'was added to the list. Thanks. — Coren (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Odyssey financial technologies

I've just received a copyright notice saying that content of my first article is from "www.odyssey-group.com". I am the webmaster of odyssey-group.com, and therefore authorized for any extract/use fron this website. Thanks for solving this and for your very efficient work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odyssey financial technologies (talk • contribs) 10:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the guide to requesting and formalizing permission to use copyrighted works on Wikipedia. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. — Coren (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have submitted article "furniture bank" for a second time, after addressing the copyright issue by placing the appropriate GDFL etc language on the referred to website text, and after attempting to provide a more global viewpoint.

I do not know how to remove the "automatic deletion" symbol. This is my first submission, and to me, my article looks VERY SIMILAR to the "food bank" article, which has been posted for more than a year without deletion. Not having the opportunity to discuss the submission rules and process in a telephone conversation but only by email is very frustrating, and very time-consuming.

Swingslide (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the rules about copyright, which placing the text in the GFDL has corrected, you also ran afoul of our prohibition on promotional material (which I've pointed out above). Given that you are an agent of the organizations, our conflict of interest rules also make it improper to edit an article on the subject. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a corporate directory; if your organization is sufficiently notable, someone else will be able to create an article about it.

Simple cut-and-paste of press releases or marketing material is not appropriate contents for an encyclopedia. — Coren (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Take Care

Please don't use Science Apologist's talk page to have long and involved discussions with users that are not SA. This has caused problems in the past. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

bot "error"

Not so much an error, more like jumping the gun. I was halfway through splitting the people out of a dab page into Lever (surname) when your bot spotted that it was almost a mirror of Lever (disambiguation). Now that I have completed the job, it isn't, so all is well. Just letting you know as requested. Cheers. Abtract (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

chm Format

One Matthew T. Russotto has published a document on his website which describes the .chm format. Russotto explicitly permits duplication of the document in whole, but not in part. I posted a copy of Russotto's document, in whole, under "CHM Format." The Coren bot deleted it. Notwithstanding the somewhat robotic action of the Coren bot, the promulgation of Russotto's document is both necessary and legal, and the decision of the bot should be overturned by its masters.

Necessary

The .chm format is a now obsolete, but common, proprietary file format developed by Microsoft and used to encode help files. The format came into widespread usage during the fifteen or so years that it was the Microsoft standard. Many existing software packages, including the Windows versions of most GNU software, are documented only with .chm files. Microsoft has never made the details of the format public, and has now discontinued support for .chm file readers. Therefore, in order to maintain the utility of software that is documented with .chm files (which represents a large proportion of all existing software), third party and/or open-source readers must be developed and/or maintained. Central to the development and maintenance of such readers is the free and open exchange of information about the format.

It is both unrealistic and disingenuous to expect that all "free" information will be governed by the GNU license or any other license. The public domain existed long before the GNU license was drafted, and will continue to exist long after. By limiting Wikipedia to information that is governed by a single license, the Wikipedia foundation needlessly limits the utility of Wikipedia to serve as a living historical record of information.

If Matthew T. Russotto elected to take down his website, the terms of his license would forever permit the information to be made available any other website. While other sources of the information exist in various places, Russotto's is the only instance of which I am aware that purports to be a complete documentation of the .chm format.

Legal

This information was placed in the public domain by the author, pursuant to a license other than the GNU license, by virtue of the following notice appearing on his website[1]:

Copyright 2001-2003 Matthew T. Russotto

You may freely copy and distribute unmodified copies of this file, or copies where the only modification is a change in line endings, padding after the html end tag, coding system, or any combination thereof. The original is in ASCII with Unix line endings.

By placing his "ideas" in the public domain, but subjecting them to certain restrictions, this author has placed his work within an area of copyright law that has yet to be fully explored by the courts. However, a strong argument can be made (by analogy with the DeCSS decisions, among others) that he has placed the entirety of his information firmly and irretrievably within the public domain.

For example, in DVD Copy Control Assn. v. Andrew Bunner, H021153, the Sixth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Andrew Bunner, finding that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act did not prevent Bunner from posting the DeCSS code (used to decrypt DVDs) on his website. A Norwegian trial court similarly held that Jon Johansen, the original author of DeCSS, had not broken any Norwegian laws in promulgating his code over the internet. See, e.g., http://www.pcworld.com/article/108462/defendant_acquitted_in_dvd_hacking_case.html [2].

Conclusion

In accordance with the instructions of the Coren bot, this description was duly placed on the talk pages of the article. However, that didn't seem to stop the bot from doing its thing. (That's the scary thing about robots, I guess.)

The talk pages also include the instruction that: Although a strong legal argument can be made that, by his actions, the author has deposited his work firmly in the public domain, prudence dictates that this article should not be modified except by the original author.

If the Coren bot could simply lock this page from ever being changed, then the "information that wants to be free" can be free. There is no question that the information can legally be reproduced so long as it is not changed; the terms of the license explicitly permit it. In addition, legal precedent strongly supports the assertion that the information is already in the public domain, rendering the terms of the license meaningless. In any event, much good and no harm can come from posting an unchangeable version of the author's work.


Tpkaplan (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Holies sites of Islam

Please see This talk page to know the reason for creating, those 2 articles Holiest sites in Islam (Sunni), and Holiest sites in Islam (Shia). This is in response to your message: in my talk page. Yamanam (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

CRC

Dear Coren, in response to your query about the Spanish Arbitration Committee - aka Comité de Resolución de Conflictos, CRC - I dare say that having had some problems in its organisation the community decided to cancel it at least until July, in order to analize if eswiki works better without its existence.

Three months have passed and it seems to be an almost unanimous agreement in that the Spanish wikipedia does not need a CRC. In the past, resolutions were delayed, there were quarrels between some of its members, among other issues. Last december, a decision was reached on this field and that was to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of having or not having this system. If you have any other question you want to ask about the CRC, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Kind regards from an ex member of the CRC, --Góngora (Talk) 23:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot caught

Heya, man. Your bot caught a similarity on The Motley Moose. I checked, and there's only a line or two the same. I think we're probably okay on that; lemme know if we're not. Ks64q2 (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Inviting constructive suggestions

In the context created by your hortatory statements, what steps need to precede inviting ArbCom to assist? Alternately, what steps could render ArbCom unnecessary?

  • While it is appropriate that the Committee never rules on contents, it should be more active at curtailing content disputes.
  • Academic integrity should become a priority.

I suspect that no other dispute resolution mechanism is able or willing to address the range of factors which affect this Central Asian Gordian Knot:

Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty

There is nothing to with Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty which that good nature or good will can mitigate. In the lengthy threads which evolved on the talk page, mine is the only participation which can't be attacked as "pro-Mongolian" or pro-PRC or pro_ROC? My tenuous link to whatever-this-is follows from my drafting an unimportant general stub article about Horses in East Asian warfare which superficially expands one section of Horses in warfare.

Background

  • 2. It is relevant that each of these battlefields was created with an investment of mere minutes. Both travesties were contrived within minutes of each other --see here ... and the pernicious effects are measured in hours wasted by those who were misguided by the hortatory WP:AGF.
  • 3. It is relevant that both of these battlefields were contrived within minutes of an impasse at Talk:Yuan Dynasty#Back on topic. Closer scrutiny of Sarsfs's "User contributions" reveals that this back-story is even worse. Compare the following:

Continuing to invest so many hours defending this article against attack is not practicable.

Problem

I think the simplest thing to do is to delete the article; but this minor tempest in a teapot is worth your closer scrutiny precisely because its parameters are so narrowed. The best course may be to attempt the alchemy which converts this problem into an object lesson.

Part of the problem is that toxic long-term warriors are viewed as vested. The balance of presumptive burdens of proof and production is misconceived or misunderstood.

Another part of the problem is that the disruptive real-world factions include anonymous IP "contributors."

A not-good-enough approach to resolve the dilemma is explained in too sketchy form at Talk:Salting the earth#Merge proposal. The cost to the attackers is minimal; the cost in time alone for those who simply seek to mitigate the harm is very high indeed. In this one case, the novel "poison pill" makes sense to me; and I wonder if the concept more broadly needs to be incorporated within the inventory of Wikipedia defense strategies?

Other aspects trouble me greatly, but this represents my best-guess about what you or someone like you might need to know as a foundational minimum. I wish I could have figured out how to present these issues more succinctly; but there you have it.

What next? --Tenmei (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


It's an interesting problem, because it's a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes. I'm going to deliberately not look at the articles or its disputants to avoid getting any partiality, but I'm going to recommend a four-prong examination:
  • What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
  • What is the general consensus of scholars in the field? (A survey of the published literature is a good method of getting a good estimate of that). Does the article reflect that consensus?
  • Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
  • Are unsourced assertions being used?
Those four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes— and are all violations of our core content policies (verifiability, no original research or neutrality depending). Focusing on that aspect is more likely to lead to a stable article than superficial behavior— a bad citation is properly removed no matter who inserts it.
The missing tool here is a method by which a determination on whether content policies are being followed can be made authoritatively.

While the committee can do so (and has done so a number of times in the past), it's not the best venue for this— we cannot mandate article contents, and our remedies do not have the flexibility or precision needed to fix that problem beyond getting "rid" of the most disruptive of editors.

A solution? Perhaps a group that can be asked to rule on specific points of actual contents. "Is X a reliable source?" "Is assertion Y supported?" "Is section Z neutral?" The problem is ArbCom does not have the authority to be that group, nor that to create the group— this needs to be either created by the community or by fiat — and such a group would not be initially well-received because it runs counter some of the traditions many Wikipedians hold dear.

You'd probably find that ArbCom would support the creation of such an organ, and would complement it by enforcement, but the original founding impetus needs to come from editors, such as you, organizing to surmount the inertia that prevents its formation. — Coren (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Coren just deleted all my hard work on article:- Contego

Hi There

This automated bot has just removed my article, which I typed by hand and while the content is similar to my webpage, it is not a copy paste, it is a manually written article which I was happy with.

This is a definate error or bug and I would appreciate it if you can please put the article back and whitelist my article from Corens paranoia.

Thanks in advance

Imcardle (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)imcardle - 17 march 2009

Actually, the bot cannot delete articles, it simply tags apparent copyright problems which human editors then review. If your article was deleted, it was done so by a human reviewer (whose name you can see from the deletion log). — Coren (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Bigotry and the panarabism ideology

Could you take a look at this article? It came up on Category:CCSD with a speedy tag on it arguing that the article has substantially the same as Anti Jewish Arabism, an article whose AFD you closed as "Delete". FWIW, I am not sure that AFD was an obvious "Delete". With 3 !voting for "Delete" and 2 !voting for "Keep", it appears you used your discretion to close for "Delete" rather than "No consensus". [[Bigotry and the panarabism ideology has much of the content that Anti Jewish Arabism did but it has some new material as well. I'm going to leave the article alone and let you decide to do something with it if you wish. --Richard (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I should probably have been more explicit when I closed this, in retrospect. The primary problem was that the delete arguments explained: the article was pretty much unsalvageable original research; the sources arguably support some of the points, but none of the elaborate prosed constructed to establish a conclusion. The arguments to keep the article were that the sources are "good", which is completely besides the point. I see the newer article suffers from much the same problems (but note it wasn't deleted because of this but because it was created by the banned user that created the original and socked to keep it).

I honestly can't tell you if a good article could be written on the topic — or if the topic has enough traction in reliable sources for an article at all — but it does seem that the current iterations, at least, are little more than soapbox to expound a very specific political position held by the editor that repeatedly recreates it. — Coren (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Choke pear

Wisconsin Forensic Coaches' Association

Greetings. I am an officer of the Wisconsin Forensic Coaches' Association, an organization that provides public speaking activities for high school students across the state of Wisconsin (United States). The person who initiated this article misspelled the organization with an "s" at the end of "Forensics," so I tried to establish a new page and redirect the old one there. Two bots stopped each action, so I'm reporting it as instructed. The ID is 641699. Thank you.

Also, I am not able to report this on ClueBot's "False Positives" page as instructed on the warning at my user page (I'm told that ClueBot's page is semi-protected).

Adam Jacobi (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am representing Commercial Section of American Institute in Taiwan to setup (under direct order from my supervisor, chief officer of Commercial Section) a page for Robert S. Wang, our current deputy director and of course I legitimately using paragraph in our website and listed here. Please undelete this page and email to Jeffrey Tsu by email: jeffrey.tsu@mail.doc.gov or jtsu@mail.ait.org.tw for verification and confirmation. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CS Taipei (talk • contribs) 08:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the guide to donating your own copyrighted material to Wikipedia. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. — Coren (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Stone County Ironworks

The article for Stone County Ironwork's page is indeed found in other places on the web, but Stone County Ironworks is giving explicit permission for their copy to be used for the sake of a Wikipedia entry. Permission can be sent via email or phone. There is no copyright infringement...full permission is given. Verify by seeing that my email for this account (AmericasBlacksmith) is at the domain of Stone County Ironwork's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericasBlacksmith (talk • contribs) 19:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


questions about BettyPatrick

You seem to be involved with the strange "disappearance" of this account. It's being discussed on WR, would you be willing to participate? This is just a courtesy note--many people are curious about what happened. Thanks. Eric Barbour (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing strange. Someone uses this account in order the harass an editor. The miscreant has been blocked, renamed and the account name salted. — Coren (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Aspen Tyler

I own the website www.AspenTyler.com and control it's contents with my webmaster. Please allow my Wiki posting to be included on your website. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btwwiki (talk • contribs) 16:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Aitias#Aitias_desysopped

I noticed you said that Sam both supported and did not vote. Which occurred? — neuro(talk)(review) 22:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

He voted, not long after the notice was posted. Apparently, he was edited in the "support" row but removing him from the "not voted" row was overlooked. I simply copied and pasted the notice without — err — noting the discrepancy.  :-) — Coren (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Derek Kale

Please help i realize there is a problem but no one is listening. I am the webmaster of Derekkale.com and any content on that website was created by me. SO anywords used from there are allowed to use please help.

--ProcupPosse (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTRS.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Philip Clemo

I am concerned that the Philip Clemo listing is still flagged. It was largely built on two biographies of Philip Clemo - by Nicholas Royle and Christopher Fortescue. Both sources have been credited in the listing. It has been mentioned that parts of one of the biographies have also been used in http://www.divine-art.com/AS/philipclemo.htm. This is correct - they have used some of the same source material on their site. They distribute some of Philip Clemo's work. However, the text on Wikipedia was written specially for Wikipedia, using the credited biogs as sources. Would be grateful if you could advise the best way forward to get both flags removed.

Thank you.

Chloe Fellerman. Assistant to Philip Clemo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pclemo (talk • contribs) 12:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Mutation

Deletion Mutation has requested that you discuss his block/checkuser results at his talk page, and has asked for someone to notify both the blocking administrator and the closing checkuser. Thanks, — neuro(talk)(review) 20:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

CorrenSearchBot in "List of... " and Disambiguation pages

Something I been noticing lately, is that the bot seems to mark pages that use content from disambiguation pages as copyvios, in addition if marked [4] as a copyvio of [5], even though the only thing similar between the two is the word "Ypsia". Could you check into this? Thanks, NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 20:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The Dog Problem (play and film)

The article The Dog Problem contained two parts, one about a film and one about a play. So I split it. I hope I did it the right way. Debresser (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's okay, provided you linked to the history of the merged article so that contributors are properly acknowledged. — Coren (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Duck, You Sucker!

Just letting you know I've removed the tag. I was moving the article from A Fistful of Dynamite to the correct title, I made the new article before redirecting the older one. --NEMT (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

CSB source

Coren,

Per this discussion I wanted to snag CSB's source so I could do a few test runs of a bot that checks for copyvio additions to established articles to see if we're missing anything significant. Unfortunately, the link to the source on CSB's userpage is dead — I waited for a bit to see if maybe the server was just temporarily down so I wouldn't have to bother you, but it appears it's not coming back up. Any chance you could re-upload it elsewhere or send it via e-mail? TIA. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Odd, I think some of the services on the toolserver side have been reorganized a bit ago and I didn't really have time to keep up. Gimme a few to figure out what's going on and I'll get back to you. — Coren (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. I can't seem to find the subversion repository anymore(!) It's probably easiest for me to just mail you a copy of my current source, sanitized.

I'm not sure you'll find it that useful though; it trades off good resistance to trivial rewording and shuffling around of text for a great deal of performance: on a good box you'll get maybe a dozen checks a minute; and it's very vulnerable to the numerous wikipedia leeches out there polluting the search engine results when the article has been around more than a few days.

Nevertheless, it might be a good basis for a primary run of your analysis— I'll clean it up and mail it to you when I get a free hour or so tomorrow. — Coren (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, something to tide you over if you want to do a couple of spot checks to see how bad the false positives could be: if you add wikilinks to articles on User:CorenSearchBot/manual, CSBot will check those when it has nothing else to do and report there (without tagging the article or listing at WP:SCV). Might be a good first attempt. — Coren (talk) 03:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it — there's absolutely no rush and if the source isn't easily shareable anymore, don't worry about it. I'll look into ginning up a random sample to use with the manual method, as well. Thanks for pointing that out, I'd never seen it! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

NetBotz

Hello I have created a page for our NetBotz line of products. Your system has flagged my page for immediate deletion for copyright violation. I am on the NetBotz Team at APC / NetBotz by Schneider Electric. The copyright is ours, and I think you need to do something to take it off your list so that the page wont get deleted. Thanks for your attention to this matter, and have a great day! 

-Ken  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenSpringhetti (talk • contribs) 17:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
If the page contained copyrighted material, it cannot remain.  Frank  |  talk  17:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Neil Powell

This is from my own website, www.neilpowell.eu, I am the owner of the copyright. Help please I don't want my page to get wiped.

Thank You

Neil

Invisiblecollege (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coren/Archives/2009/March&oldid=1142942229"