User talk:Coren

Albe Back

The information that was posted on Albe Back's wikipedia was done for our client Albe by moonsix communications inc. We posted the copyright for the website it was originally posted on, we own the copyright so there should be no problems with copyright infringement.

copyright ok for artcile "Roger B. Baron", please re-establish

I am the author of http://regor.meta-x.org/Baron/index_en.html , text from which the wikipedia article I submitted, "Roger B. Baron", was widely inspired from. And I am willing to permit it re-use under the GFDL.

You can verify authenticity by matching the email of my wikipedia account (Montmartrebear) with the author's email on http://regor.meta-x.org/Baron/index_en.html : regor <at> meta-x <dot> org

Therefore, I kindly ask you to re-establish this article.

1944 D-Day: Operation Overlord

I actually got that info from www.1944d-day.com and I did reference it. If there's anything more I shoul do, please let me know. Legend6 (talk)Legend6

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

• 1. It is relevant that Mongolia during Tang rule and a corollary article about Tibet were created on the same day by the same Sarsfs:

• 22:03, 18 February 2009 (hist) (diff) N Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty ‎
• 22:08, 18 February 2009 (hist) (diff) N Tibet during the Tang Dynasty

• 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:

• Talk:Yuan Dynasty#Bathrobe and Anon ip who insulted chinese, prepare to get owned big time with
• Talk:Mongolia#Mongolia was under TAng dynasty chinese domination, ho ho ho Genuinemongol you got owned big time.

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 (WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:N 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)