User talk:Coren

Storage Deluxe

Hi Coren - I think your bot mistakenly determined that the new wiki page for "Storage deluxe" was a copy of the website content from storagedeluxe.com. I am not an employee of Storage Deluxe, and have every intention of adhering to Wikipedia's editorial policies.
12 Dec 2009 11:05 am EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by SelfstorageNY (talk • contribs) 16:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright owner

Some of the text present in the article comes from NoCrew official site. The copyright of the website has been donated by Nocrew LLC to Wikipedia after contacting your office. Please not that non of the text in this article present any form of copyright violation.

Time for celebrating is over...

off to work you go!
Congratulations :-) FloNight♥♥♥♥

Topic ban violations

Recently Tymek violated his WP:EEML topic ban at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination): [1].

However, I'm unsure whether to file a report, since it seems that everyone who reports topic ban violations gets attacked. When Russavia reported Vecrumba's topic ban violations ([2][3][4]) to Sandstein, Vecrumba responded by making accusations against Russavia: User_talk:Vecrumba#Your_recent_edits_to_EE-related_topics. To be completely honest, I feel these topic ban violations may be intended as "traps"—whoever reports them will be accused of stalking and battleground behaviour. Therefore I'm asking for your advice on what to do. Should we just ignore these occasional topic ban violations and allow them to go on? Or should everything be reported? Let's say I reported Tymek's edit to WP:AE. Would you personally regard this as battleground behaviour on my part? Sorry for this latest WP:EEML mess. Offliner (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have already settled matters on my edits with Sandstein and indicated I have no interest in exploring the limits of my topic ban. If editors who presented against me at the EEML proceedings

1. refrain from responding to my questions to ArbCom and
2. refrain from invoking "EEML!" on article talk pages where I and others are banned from participating,

there will be no need (my perspective) for conflict. If I violate some code of conduct, I'm sure editors other than my antagonists will notice and deal with it.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

History of Ranchi

Hello! The article History of Ranchi was created by me from the history content of the Ranchi article. The section of history of Ranchi article made the article too lengthy. So, I decide to move the content into a new article named History of Ranchi to make the Ranchi article less lengthy and more readable. But, I didn't know that the content was copyrighted as I had just moved it from one wiki article to a new one.

However, I have re-written the article completely and provided references. You may verify the content for yourself. WorLD8115(TalK) 17:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fruitbats & Crows

The information from http://www.2feetmusic.com/releasepage.php?album=SSCD%20524 has been donated to the article on Wikipedia by 2Feet Music. The information was compiled on both sites by Brett Schewitz.

Schwepps (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Lemon liqueur copyvio false positive

Hi. The bot generated copyvio alert on Lemon liqueur is a false positive. The web page in question appears to be derived from the Wikipedia article Limoncillo, and Lemon liqueur includes some content removed from Limoncillo. --Una Smith (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Replying at your talk. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Might the bot skip content created by autoreviewers? --Una Smith (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a bad idea. I've seen several articles (containing copyright violations) at WP:SCV that have been created by autoreviewers. Theleftorium 20:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And, indeed, even admins. Few people are truly familiar with the sometimes baroque complexities of following law and licenses, and it's fairly clear that — in the long run — the occasional inconvenience of having to remove a templated false positive is worth the added protection. In slightly more than two years of running, CSBot has ferreted out over 35000 probable copies, of which some 26000 were unsalvageable copyvios that had to be deleted (some repeatedly!) — and much of the others it found were stubbed or rewritten. — Coren ^(talk) 21:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the false positive rate? --Una Smith (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw the suggestion! I forgot admins get the autoreviewer bit by default.

I have often thought granting admin editors automatically the perks that must be earned by content editors is a mistake. It sends the wrong message to both admin editors and content editors. Also, in my opinion, too many admin editors have too little experience as content editors. --Una Smith (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)