User talk:Coren

Before you leave a message about CorenSearchBot leaving a template on your talk page:

• If you have copied text to which you own the copyright: 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.

• If you have been given permission to reuse someone else's text: Please read the guide to requesting and formalizing permission to use copyrighted works on Wikipedia. As above, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest.

• If you were attempting to rename an article or create a disambiguation page: Compliance with the GFDL requires that the article be actually moved rather than copied with cut-and-paste to preserve editing history. Please tag the new copy with {{db-move}} and an administrator will be able to assist you.

• If the original source was itself a copy of Wikipedia text: Reusing the text is probably okay, but make sure you link back to the original article to comply with the GFDL. If the site CSBot found is a Wikipedia mirror, you may want to notify me so I can add it to the list for the future.

• If the original source is in the public domain: Reusing the text is okay, but you almost certainly want to attribute it with an appropriate template (such as {{DANFS}} or {{1911}}); this will cause CSBot to leave the article alone.

  If you did attribute it with an appropriate template, but it was still flagged as a copyvio, then it's probable the bot does not know the template you have used. You might want to tell me on this page so I can add it to the list.

Otherwise, remember that text found on other web pages is copyrighted by default. Unless there is an explicit permission on the page (or site) allowing reuse without conditions (or under the GFDL) you can not use that text in a Wikipedia article!

Thank you!

((older cruft/undated messages moved to User talk:Coren/old stuff))

Speakerheart

Yes, I need to reference the article.

Damn you Coren. And damn your robotic menace as well.

*shakes fist meaningfully* HalfShadow 02:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Muahaha. Resistance is futile! — Coren ^(talk) 02:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot edit in Aleksandra Samusenko

Hi, Coren. See the recent article's edit summary on that. --Brand спойт 15:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot Algoithm

I raised a question at Wikipedia talk:Suspected copyright violations that you may wish to participate in. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 17:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ignore the above. My mistake was pointed out to me. -- JLaTondre 18:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Fort Union (Wisconsin)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Fort Union (Wisconsin), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM2558. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 12:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The photo is my work, I don't belive that text from a waymaker is copyrighted material Rattis irrittis 12:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

About the article Thrinax ekmaniana

Hello there, this is about a notice for deletion of the picture of the Jumagua Palm that appears in the article "Thrinax ekmaniana". This photo was taken by the eminent botanist Carlo Morici (Carlo Morici), Morici personally worked with me and advised me about this article and the parent article dedicated to the Mogotes de Jumagua, the natural habitat of this very rare species of Palm. The photo in question has been released to public domain by the author and used in several sites. Mr. Morici ask me to put the photo in both articles himself, note also the picture has a watermark showing his authorship that I made for him. Please consider all this this before taking away the photo, since it is the only one of this endangered tree.

I also join the others user asking for a more flexible "bot" about copyright issues, the article itself was difficult to write since we were using Morici's previous articles in the web as well, this doesn't necessarily mean we are going the wrong way. I'm about to embark in a new article about a new palm that Carlo discover last year in Cuba, I know same troubles are going to appear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lezumbalaberenjena (talk • contribs) 19:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are a number of things we can do; but the most important thing you need to realize is that CSBot does not mark articles for deletion, only for human attention so you can simply go ahead and remove the tag. If you know which source your information will come from, and if its copyright permissions allow it (or if you have explicit permission) then we can preemptively whitelist the source and you'll get no warning. Please keep in mind that if an article you wrote was tagged by CSBot then deleted, then it was deleted by a human administrator who has reviewed the article. — Coren ^(talk) 01:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. So are you (or any other admin) whitelisting the article? Because that would be great. I'm gonna start the new one probably today under the name "Coccothrinax torrida" if you go to the article "Coccothrinax" is almost one of the last ones in the list and you can see it was discovered by "C. Morici & R. Verdecia" I'm gonna be using pictures and probably some text from the site of Jardin Botanico de las Tunas and from this site "http://www.pacsoa.org.au/palms/Coccothrinax/torrida.html" because they were taken and written by Carlo as well, he already gave me green light on the matter a coupe of weeks ago. Hope this is Ok Coren, if any issue occurs can I get back to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lezumbalaberenjena (talk • contribs) 14:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can come back to me without hesitation. However, I cannot whitelist the http://www.pacsoa.org.au/ website, it states quite clearly on its entrance page that "All material on these pages is copyrighted by PACSOA, and may not be used without permission." Since you have explicit permission from a specific author, you'll have to explain so on the article's talk page and its likely that CSBot will tag the article. Again, as I said, this is nothing to worry about directly since a human will come by and see your note on the talk page but I would recomment formalizing the fact that you have permission which will avoid all problems entirely.

Sorry if this is a bit of trouble, but it is important that the copyright status of text that ends up in Wikipedia is unambiguous (and legal, obviously). I'm sure you can understand. — Coren ^(talk) 15:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Salamander

What's your problem? The change I made wasn't a joke. Might I suggest you learn to conduct yourself properly as a sysadmin? For one thing, do you even know what a caduate is? Because that's not what Sala is in the anime. Definitely not. He's a fire lizard. A salamander in mythology is a lizard, not an amphibian. Additionally, you're doing a rather poor job of making me feel welcome here. Bokan 01:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Bokan

My apologies. I misinterpreted your edit (I didn't notice which section it was in) while keeping an eye on a recently vandalized article. I've struck out the warning on your talk page and left an notice to explain that. And yes, I do know what a caudate is, but I'm no anime expert.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 01:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, sorry I blew up at you, but I can't put the slashed out thing back up. It says that happened too far back for me to bring it back. Bokan 02:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Bokan

One apology is sufficient thanks :) Bokan 02:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Bokan

Amendments to my article

Hello, hope the changes I made to article about Henry Agar-Ellis, 3rd Viscount Clifden are sufficient. Bashereyre 08:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

They appear to have been. Good editing! — Coren ^(talk) 15:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot

I'll reply to your (very welcome) comment here rather than clog up the thread even more. Yes, I try to be civil with people who are civil with me, but otherwise I have no connection with Sadi Carnot and I can quite understand that certain users find him annoying. No, I don't think this affects my judgement because I think the ban is wrong in principle, even if Sadi Carnot never benefits from the lifting of it (that would be his own personal decision). So many bad things have been said about this user that I have to use strong terms to defends his rights, and the edits which he has made that have been appreciated by WikiChemists in general (as opposed to the theories he expounds in his book). Best wishes. Physchim62 (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is where we disagree. From what I can discern, and from the opinions of those who are chiming in from the wikiprojects, Sadi's contributions may have had the appearance of being good, but are either subtly wrong, or obsessed contents from sources so old the only place left for them is in historical articles.

What I think happened is that Sadi constructed an elaborate and fanciful theory from cherry picked fragments of genuine science (some over two centuries old) and is now probably genuinely convinced of his brilliance and insight. Then he attempted to expound his theories on WP (not an unfamiliar pattern; that's the very reason why there is an OR policy!)

Where the problem lies is after being rebuked the first times. He then came back and started to make hundreds of small, cumulative edits over many articles in order that a non-expert looking at his contributions would see nothing way out there, and cross-checking in the other articles he had also tweaked would seem to give support to his edits. Couple that with the unfortunate tendency of giving quotes and citations that appear to support his edits and nobody but experts (or very patient editors) can sort out the fringe from the science anymore.

Whether by conviction of helping the encyclopedia or by obsessive mania, he will come back and start again. A ban is, I am now convinced, the only way to contain the damage. But remember that a ban can be overturned. If he comes back, he can ask; an I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a probation if he clearly understands why he has been banned in the first place.

Want a prediction? He will come back (probably with a new identity) but not see why we felt this was needed. Either convinced there is a cabal trying to suppress his revolutionary insight, or that we are just a bunch of philistines unable to comprehend his revelation, he will work hard to "make the truth known". I might be wrong. I hope I am, actually.

So... I think you were rash in lifting the block, and I think now concensus is very clear that a community ban is appropriate. I know you disagree with it in good faith, but I also hope you see that there was no witch hunt. We're all trying to protect the encyclopedia, not burn old ladies (even if it is true that some proponents of the ban were... a bit vocal). — Coren ^(talk) 17:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

(As a note, I don't think anyone says that everything SC wrote is bad; but that everything is suspect— this is why many are talking about going through his contributions). — Coren ^(talk) 17:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I honestly believe that SC is being persecuted for his opinions rather than what he has actually done. Your last comment illustrates the hysteria—SC has been editing on high profile articles for nearly two years, his edits are no more "suspect" than anything else that appears on Wikipedia. Hopefully ArbCom will allow people to look at the evidence in a calmer manner. Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

You have been named in a request for arbitration titled Sadi Carnot. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and consider making a statement per the instructions there. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

'A Defence of Poetry' Unnecessarily Deleted

Coren, your bot did catch text that matched perfectly 'A Defence of Poetry', but it was someone citing Percy Bysshe Shelley's article! It was the same text because the copyright no longer applies because 'A Defence of Poetry' was published in 1821.
The text I supplied wasn't an article, but the first paragraph of the Shelley's response to Thomas Love Peacock having cleverly slagged poetry. The text your bot found was in the pre-amble to a listing of notes added to the complete text of 'A Defence of Poetry'.
I will be recreating the quotation, and will expand it to include its genesis. Thanks to your bot for bringing to my attention more history about Shelley's interesting article, which is really an argument about the place of reason versus imagination has in the human condition. And I could see why it was fooled, but I found the quick deletion of this article that exists in the public domain to be a bit odd. Even a tiny bit of research within Wiki itself would have shown the item to have been published in 1821. --e.gajd Canada 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Revd John Mason

You are correct in spotting the plagiarism of another site but since I wrote that site also, I am surely allowed to plagiarise myself! Medw813164 13:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Medw813164

Catholic Encyclopedia

Your copyvio bot doesn't realise that the old Catholic Encyclopedia is now in the public domain. Please whitelist www.newadvent.org, and mirrors. Charles Matthews 16:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Coren

...and thanks for letting me know about that ANI thread. I seem to have missed the boat on that somewhat. As an inexperienced editor (especially in the area of user conduct) I am not sure that my posting there now will be of any benefit since the issue is now subject to arbitration. I really hope I haven't done anything wrong here. I am finding this whole affair really quite disorienting, but I remain interested in the facts. Peace ~ TreeKittens 16:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)