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

Dastoor(Poem)

I wrote in the above captioned article, the poem is a public property in Pakistan, the poet Habib Jalib refused to get it copyrighted and allowed anyone to use or publish it.added by Kalamkaar, on 4th April 09

Legalities

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)

That's ridiculous. Coren retains all rights conferred under the terms of the GFDL contract. That is the contract governing contributions here and I'm not even sure it can be surrendered. What Coren can do is choose not to pursue those rights if they are infringed, thus acquiescing in their lapse. The present issue is people claiming more rights than they actually have, using a confused pseudo-legal justification. I fail to see how that leads to a requirement for Coren to surrender his legitimate contract rights. Franamax (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't remember having made such a statement in the past (nor am I going to make one). — Coren ^(talk) 13:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I for one am not afraid to assert my rights and have done so here. Elanthia (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good for you— let's hope your government holds that promise to you. I can't help but wonder what the limits placed on the power of your government have to do with Wikipedia, however? — Coren ^(talk) 21:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking particularly of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Elanthia (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Noted. If I ever end up being a district attorney where you live, I'll be extra careful to convene a grand jury before you are indicted of a capital crime. I'll also try extra-hard to not question the public debt of the United States if it has to fight a rebellion.

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)

Some very tempting diversions there. But it's about the human right to due process. I believe that applies to pretty well all the participants here. 91.104.96.10 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You have absolutely zero rights on this website. As long as the Wikimedia Foundation follows the laws of the United States of America and the States of Florida and Califonia regarding appropriate content, they may do whatever they please for any reason, or even no reason at all. This website is privately owned and privately operated. Although they do allow pretty much anyone to modify the content hosted on their servers, they have not, and do not give up their rights as the sole owners of this property. WP:FREE is aimed at a different target, but I would suggest that you read it, as many of the issues addressed there also apply to this situation. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually we all have one right here - the right to leave. And as long as the data is available, we have the right to fork a properly attributed copy of the entire site. Other than that though, yes, all we have is the privilege of messing about on a private company's servers. Franamax (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(Yes, that numerical edit was me, somehow I got logged out.)

J.delanoy confuses, as so many do, the real-life rights (let me call them Rrights) inherent to human beings; the legal rights (say Lrights) they derive from their legal environment, and which in many modern democaracies derive from their Rrights; and finally the moves permitted to players within the Wikipedia game (say Wrights). Participating in Wikipedia does not and can not diminish your Rrights. Participation may interact with your Lrights, since, as JD acknowledges, Wikipedia exists in the real world and the people and entities associated with it are subject to the laws of various jurisdictions. Unless s/he is a lawyer, JD's opinion on how that interaction plays out is just as valuable as mine, which is to say, quite worthless -- it also happens to be wrong, as a glance at WP:COPYRIGHT will show and as Franamax points out. I assert my Rrights and Lrights and choose not to abandon them. Elanthia (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You are working under a misconception. In real-life, you have no rights at all. If I see you walking down the street and pull a gun out and shoot you dead, your quoting the constitution is not going to stop the bullet. (Rest assured that I have no intent to make a practical demonstration :) Walk out into the forest and declaim your inherent human rights to a hungry grizzly bear, I've heard they're quite receptive to long debates.

My point here is that the only rights you have are those granted to you by the human society within which you exist. If you choose to operate within the norms of your society, those rights are available and many people will defend them. If you choose to work outside the boundaries, hey, whatever - discuss it with the grizzlies. So the norms within which we operate are those of the society with which we choose to associate. In this case, it's Wikipedia. Your Rrights don't exist, your Lrights are down at the bottom of the screen, your Wrights are determined regularly, case-by-case and daily. You can only decide whether this is the particular society where you want to be. I'm not saying you should leave! I'm just saying that you have to argue from within this society if you want things to change. Franamax (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Coren for making your bar turn orange so often. I'll stop now. :)

... err, "You have the right to be eaten by a bear?"  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 13:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is sufficiently obvious that I have been attempting to have a serious discussion about the interaction between real-life legal rights and conduct on Wikipedia. Persistently answering as if I were talking about the National Debt, or grizzly bears, or some other equally ridiculous subject, is rather wearisome: you don't really believe that. If you don't care to discuss the issue, say so in so many words. This persiflage really is not the reaction we expect of an administrator and arbitrator. Elanthia (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We have attempted, through light-hearted banter, to try to make you understand that your perception of putative 'rights" on Wikipedia are an illusion borne of misunderstanding what your nation's constitution is, and what it applies to (Hint: it is not about private websites and does not apply to Wikipedia). As a simple matter of fact, the Foundation allows the individual projects to set their own operating rules, none of which depend or rely on a nation's constitution— and none of which affords your any right whatsoever. Everyone has the potential privilege of participating, but that can be withdrawn for any reason (or on a whim); confusing it with a government where concepts such as due process or rights of protection apply is, at best, completely misguided.

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)

My position is that I hold various rights already -- I'm not quite so sad as to attempt to ground my human rights on a website. I can also distinguish quite clearly between the pseudo-legal processes here and the real things (although it is hardly "coincidental" that the Arbitration Committee uses legal terminology such as "recuse"). What you do not seem to want to accept is that WMF, Wikipedia, its readers and contributors exist in the real world where real people have real legally enforceable rights, and that the processes of Wikipedia inevitably interact with those rights. To take just one example: the law of copyright in any given jurisdiction governs what may or may not be done with contributions to Wikipedia whether the WMF likes it or not, and this interaction is in fact explicitly acknowledged and managed by their policies.

It is of course technically possible for you to withdraw my ability to participate "on a whim", just as it is technically possible for a contributor to write an article defaming a living person, or physically possible for Franamax to shoot someone down in the street. That possibility does not mean that these actions are necessarily devoid of consequences in the real world. Your position as quoted in my first posting seems to be that this assertion is some kind of legal threat, your latest posting that it is an illusion -- mine is that it is simple and inescapable truth. Elanthia (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No one has so much as hinted at denying that WMF must operate in a world where people have legally enforceable rights. Your appeals to copyright and defamation law are obvious examples showing that WMF and Wikipedia do not ignore this fact, but they are out of place in the context of this discussion. This discussion needs less vagaries and abstraction — I can think of zero laws that impede WMF or Wikipedia's ability to decide when and how any user may or may not participate or interact with its services. You have failed to provide such a law. You seem to be proclaiming that you have rights granted to you by the United State Constitution (based on the statement on your userpage and in other locations) that WMF can potentially violate. This is simply not true. The United States Constitution governs the form and function of the federal government, not private enterprise. The federal government may not impede your right to free speech and association (though it actually can, in limited and fairly obvious cases). Wikipedia can impede it to its heart's content. Statutory law governs what private enterprise can and cannot do (appeals to natural law (or Rrights, in your terminology) have been ignored by U.S. courts for over a hundred years), and again, I know of no laws restricting WMF's available actions in the areas that you are discussing. If you could actually provide one that we are missing, that would be extremely helpful. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In passing, quite a number of people "hint at denying" that the processes of Wikipedia inevitably interact with those rights. The US Constitution guarantees, rather than grants, rights, translating Rrights into Lrights by prescribing the scope of the laws which the (Federal and state) legislatures may make and setting up a judiciary to rule on them. The basis of the statutory law you rely on thus lies in the constitution, and even if natural law were looking old-fashioned, Rrights under the name "Civil Rights" would be doing pretty well in recent decades. That statutory law applies to WMF. If you want a legal opinion on WMF's actions, ask their lawyers, not me, to "provide a law" (but you might ask them to start with the Civil Rights Acts and the Americans with Disabilities Act). You might also ask them how excluding contributors "on a whim" would play out in court if used, say, to exclude on the grounds of race or sex.

You agree that WMF respects contributors' copyrights and then deny that a contributor has rights that the WMF can potentially violate. This is a contradiction: copyright is one of the Lrights corresponding to the Rright to the fruits of one's work. Elanthia (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

G'day Coren

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)

PM, please go and read the recent postings on User talk:Cailil before jumping to conclusions. Coren in fact participated in the thread at WR after my (one and only!) posting there. I later read my own WP emails after reading Cailil's comments on his own emails. I can confirm Cailil's statements. That's about it for the moment. Mathsci (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for that pointer, Math - so t'would seem there is some sort of ongoing issue in regard to alistair. Hopefully that can get sorted out in reasonable time. I'm still uncertain as to how exactly User:Skywriter ended up getting blocked indefinitely - and it's that action I see as a bungle. It'll all come out in the wash, no doubt though... Privatemusings (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

mornin' Coren - I'm hoping you've had the chance to review Alastair's block by now (your posts would seem to indicate as much) - I'm a little confused as to the rationale for the block now that everything's out in the open - could you possibly explain the steps you'd like to see Alistair take for you to unblock? That might resolve the matter of the block quickly and easily. Privatemusings (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The matter is currently in discussion within the Committee. — Coren ^(talk) 23:04, 15 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)

You're confusing two different things; oversight of OTRS isn't an ArbCom matter; at least not officially so (there is some question about what some OTRS pages themselves are saying that confuse the matter, though). Alastair's block is a different matter from the OTRS email (even though it was precepitated by it). — Coren ^(talk) 04:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

ah... well okey dokey then. My understanding currently is then that arbcom is discussing alastair's block, and you're awaiting the outcome of those discussions before posting further as to your rationale (as blocking admin) and what next steps you'd like to see to unblock Alastair - is that right? Privatemusings (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I should expect the next step(s) to be taken mostly by email directly with him, actually, given that there are a number of real life identities involved and that we don't want to further exacerbate the situation (which, as you are probably aware, is partly caused by that in the first place).

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)

mornin' C - thanks for your reply. I want to take you to task a bit on a couple of things above which ring bells for me;

• I believe your interpretation of the 'no legal threats' policy is weak, and manifestly incorrect. Your assertion that Alastair bears responsibility for an email sent from a third party is novel, and a bad precedent. Please explain in policy terms how you arrive at your understanding that a block for 'proxy threatening' is appropriate.
• Do you agree that even given your interpretation of 'proxy threatening' a consensus amongst OTRS volunteers who have examined the email, that it does constitute a legal threat, is necessary for your action to stand? Is it your view that such a consensus exists?
• The big bad bell goes bong though when you write above 'we have not considered' - who's 'we' white man? - You may be unknowingly reaching for a passive voiced argument from authority there, although it does perhaps indicate that there is a consensus I'm unaware of - please explain who the 'we' is, and how you came to the judgment that the 'protestations' were not credible.

You've had days to sort this out, dude, and you're doing bugger all on the wiki - an indefinite block is a serious thing to get wrong, and I think you need to do more to explain yourself, and help resolve this. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Simply put: No. At this point, the real life identity of at least three persons and their relationships are concerned, and for you to begin to understand the situation would require disclosure. I will not discuss this on-wiki, and I will not disclose further details. You do not have enough information to make an informed judgment on the matter, at this point, so you'll have to simply be patient and wait for resolution— your hypotheses about my incompetence are amusing, but completely unhelpful. — Coren ^(talk) 23:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry dude, but that's not the way policy, nor good sense suggest things should progress - patience is obviously a virtue, but a blocking admin has an obligation to transparency, which I feel you are falling far short of. You have explained to me that you have blocked Alastair based on an email sent by someone else several days before Alastair explicitly disavowed any legal action here on this wiki. The opacity of the situation is largely obfuscation in my view, not privacy related - in particular please acknowledge that my bullet points one and two above are not contentious, nor subject to privileged info. Please attend to them. Privatemusings (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

ping pong :-) - I hope you'll be able to treat a dubious block of a good faith user as an urgent matter, C - it'd be appreciated. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

< 4 days slipping by... please update urgently. Privatemusings (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

5 days, and a unanimous consensus (of six, currently) on the noticeboard for an unblock. Please action. Privatemusings (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Coren, you've probably seen my comments at the admin board. Allow me to elaborate on them: unless we're mistaken over there--please correct us if we are--Alistair Haines took no objectionable action in between the time when he posted clear withdrawal of legal threats, and the indefinite block. The OTRS ticket was created before that withdrawal. So I think the best course is to unblock him here and hope for the best. If that works out, great. Everyone agrees that he'd be on his last chance. Durova^Charge! 06:48, 20 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)

Thank you. Durova^Charge! 18:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks heaps, Coren :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot issue

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)

:( -- Tinu Cherian - 13:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please fix the issue. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've whitelisted you; but you should probably be aware that mass creation of such stubs is far from uncontroversial and is sometimes ill-viewed. — Coren ^(talk) 16:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I am trying to improve the stub quality. Have you whitelisted Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs · count) also ? He is also working on similar stuff -- Tinu Cherian - 14:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

North East Chinese Basketball League

(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)

I'm afraid I can't. There is always the possibility that it was somebody else's private information he mistakenly attributed to you. If you want, you can email me enough of your own information that I can match against it and tell you if he had it right, though. — Coren ^(talk) 13:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(removed copy of email, now in User talk:Confucius7/email)

Regarding North East Chinese Basketball League; I have now managed to confirm the users OTRS email; the article is now tagged. I've largely rewritten it; full story in User talk:Confucius7. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  13:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

CSB down...

...or have all the copyright infringers finally got the message? contribs. – Toon^(talk) 19:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it was working, but I agree it's suspicious. I've restarted it with logging on to see if something broke in a non-obvious way and I'll be keeping an eye on it. — Coren ^(talk) 13:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Base Lending Rate

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)

Bot message

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 have left you this message yesterday but, for reasons unknown to me, User:Malaysiablr deleted it shortly after (see here). The article in question has since gone through a speedy deletion process, and survived. Thougt, I better let you know in case somebody accusses me of illegially removing your bots tag. Regards, EA210269 (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing illegal about removing the tags, in any sense of the word. It's the proper thing to do when the bot is confused or the copy is real but legitimate, and every page that is tagged is also subject to human review. The template is mostly there for the benefit of editors and patrollers to bring attention to a potential problem. — Coren ^(talk) 03:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Karel Lomecky

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)

Notice

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)

Perhaps a good start might be to state what your reasons to believe such a things might be. And no, "I don't agree" does not mean "abuse". I have, admittedly, been overly snarky in the comment I've left you when I blocked you; and while this is something I should not have done, it's by no means an abuse of administrative buttons. At worse, it's an unwarranted foray into dripping sarcasm. — Coren ^(talk) 02:32, 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)

It is not, as far as I know, possible to remove a block in the way you expect. It can be done by directly altering the database, but has not been done since roughly 2005 and the developers (the only ones who have the technical ability to do so) have stated in no unequivocal terms that this should not be done absent critically desperate circumstances (of which this is obviously not one).

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:

1. obviously worded according to some legal theory^* you expected to have standing;
2. asserted rights you mistakenly believed you had in a specific legal jurisdiction; and
3. stated that you were (not) doing something according to those putative legal rights, or that you expected ArbCom to do so.

Given that I do not expect you (or anyone else) to make random vacuous legal statements without intending legal consequences, the implicit threat of pursuing the matter in Florida courts seemed (and still seems) obvious. I note, incidentally, that you have still not stated otherwise.

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)

It is possible that Fahrenheit451's concerns sprang from the possibility that taking part in a Wikipedian "arbitration committee" process might be seen by a real-life court later as a real-life Arbitration (and thereby weaken his position). The parties might agree on a compromise statement for F451

I acknowledge that Fahrenheit451's legal position is unaffected by participation in Arbitration Committee proceedings.

F451 can sign up on the basis of Coren's acknowledgement above that the WP processes bear only a coincidental resemblance to the Real Thing. Coren can sign up since he is convinced that F451 has no legal position to affect. Elanthia (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot tagging fungus stubs

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)

This is getting highly annoying, and wasting my editing time... please make it stop. Thanks Sasata (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)