User talk:Coren

DJ Concept

in relation to the: DJ Concept article:

the page http://www.execute1200.com/site/djconcept.html page does not exist anymore. furthermore i've updated the DJ Concept article, removing any unnecessary links & added reference links from external websites. thanks!

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Sockpuppetry_in_the_Climate_Change_topic_area

I have posted a direct and simple question for arbitors to verify. I believe the finding of fact referenced may materially mistake facts (writing "accounts" when it actually means "the effect of year old rangeblocks"). It would be nice if you could verify the wording of this proposed, currently passing, finding of fact. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

False positive

I just created the article Masquerade (play) and within seconds CorenSearchBot suggested it was a copyvio of a video resource guide from the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Since my article is about a play written in Russian in 1835 by Mikhail Lermontov, this seems rather not a likely match. I do admid I am amazed at how fast that thing works -- and the suggested copyvio source document was a PDF file, even. It can't even imagine how on Earth you do that. Anyway, no problem, but this is a false positive, by a country mile. Herostratus (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarity (Olap the Ogre)

Saw your CU block of Olap the Ogre. A little unclear. Are you saying he wasn't who he says on his user page, or that it's an unacceptable account even with that identification?--Cube lurker (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

See below. — Coren ^(talk) 18:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Read your answer below and it clears up the question I had. Thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Olap the Ogre

Not that it likely matters, given the fact that the user retired the account. But can you explain your block and in particular the rationale? This account has been clearly announced as a replacement account. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And it would have been left alone had it not been accompanied by even more new alternates — not all declared. At this point, Prodego Polargeo needs to pick one and stick with it; repeatedly changing identity is disruptive and spreads contributions around making it difficult to reconstruct contribution history (not counting the fact that it's both confusing and annoying to the people trying to discuss things with someone who keeps quitting and coming back with a different account during the dispute). — Coren ^(talk) 18:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, though, that block didn't need to be marked {{checkuser}} — I double checked with the tool that it and the others were definitely the same users but that one wasn't blocked because of checkuser information but because of the disruption caused by the numbers of "alternates". At any rate, that's mostly academic, since the password to that account is supposedly lost so I doubt there will be a request to unblock it. — Coren ^(talk) 18:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I believe that Coren is referring to User:Polargeo, not User:Prodego, who has not been involved in the Climate Change case whatsoever. Risker (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Agh. Yes, yes I am. Catastrophic brain failure. — Coren ^(talk) 18:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not certain if catastrophic brain failure is the condition that gets one to stand for ArbCom, or if it is only enforced once you are appointed (did they point a humming device with a large shiny mirror at your head after the election?), or if it is a natural risk coming with the job... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure bout running for election, but I'm pretty sure that the brain damage is prerequisite to running for reelection.  :-)

Martintg's topic ban violation

Here you warned Piotrus that any attempt to test the limits of the topic ban will result in its reinstatement. Martintg tried to do just this - and was blocked for a week (although actually the violation was pretty clear and 3 different admins agreed[1][2][3].) I think before the narrowing, Martintg was warned as well -- shouldn't the full topic ban now be restored? As I tried to show in my AE request, I believe Martintg has been consistently ignoring his topic ban from the very beginning. Offliner (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Austin Volk

I just started an article about Austin Volk who was a New Jersey politician and businessman. The bot said the article was a copyright violation because of an obituary I used as a citation. I just used it as a citation. In fact when I used the citation I made a mistake in spelling so initially the citation did not take hold. The article is a stub not an article. Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Werner Willikens

I am not a member of yahoo groups so I cannot see the text and therefore have no idea what you are talking about. I certainly didn't copy anything from any group but rather took all information from a variety of books as sourced in the article itself. Until the supposed source of copyright violation is available to those of us not involved in yahoo then I fail to see how I can even answer the allegations being thrown at me by some bot. Keresaspa (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please delete User:Polargeo

I don't accept other users editing my user pages. It should be up to me to decide not you. You may request and negotiate but just leaping in an editing my userpage is extremely rude. Jbtscott (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it should not. People examining your editing history should be able to find your previous account, and people looking up your previous account need to be able to find the new one. In case you had not understood, linking the accounts to each other was not a suggestion, it was a requirement of being unblocked. I'm going to restore the redirect; please don't make me have to protect your former user page. If you prefer some other means of linking the accounts, you are welcome to alter the redirect into something else (for instance, the {{FormerAccount}} template would do), but the link between the accounts must be clear and direct. — Coren ^(talk) 15:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

How

How can you go about editing my userpages without asking. Do you think I cannot organise my own affiars. This is deeply deeply insulting. Jbtscott (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh and you blocked legitimate socks of mine. Such as PolargeoSock. Would you accept such legitmate socks of your own to be blocked? Or would other arbs accept this? Just seems to me like you have decided it is okay to shit on me from a great hight. Jbtscott (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You are allowed to use exactly one account. — Coren ^(talk) 15:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Donaldson Prison

I don't see how it's a copyvio. I made my text all on my own. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• BTW I used http://www.doc.state.al.us/facility.asp?id=4 as a source, but if you compare the two, you will find the sentences are different. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• And I noted things at Talk:William_E._Donaldson_Correctional_Facility WhisperToMe (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I see what happened - I had some text that was quoted directly from the ADOC source that I was using to write new sentences, but I forgot to remove the quote. In this revision I removed the quotation WhisperToMe (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

False positive: Carlos Arellano Felix

Seconds after I created the Article Carlos Arellano Félix y got a message from the bot. However, web page created an instant mirror web page of the article I just created. Thank you. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed in Wikipedia

Hello,

Someone from your organization keeps writing me the below message. There is no way to communicate with this person. I originally came to wikipedia to introduce a topic for historical archive. I never wanted to write an article. The only way I could introduce it was to write the article by your policy. I had to read pages of protocol just to get to a finished product which was approved even though I thought it was poorly written and demeaned the original content. I worked on it for 3 days to get it to the point it didn't look like an amateur article. Then today I started getting disturbing error messages one after another with a suspicious and accusatory tone. Below is a sample of what I got and how I responded to it.

Whoever this is writing this to me has no talk back capability when I follow the link.

You shouldn't be writing about a topic with which you such an obvious personal association. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all I never wanted to write this article just to introduce the event to be archived in history. As a newcomer to this site I am very disappointed in the direction this has taken. Please remove my article 140TH Anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation from your site. When I first came to wiki I thought you would be writing it. So when I was told to author it I attempted to include all facts. This was not a self promotional for me this event is over 6 years old and this time in history is gone. There is no money to be made from it or off it.

Whoever this suspicious person is they have been downright rude and accusatory, unnecessarily. I do not want a positive event to end up on your site with such a negative box and connotation added to it after the event's success. Please remove the article immediately. I find it slanderous. I have barely been on wikipedia for three days and I know no one personally. Thank you, for your civility. This was a horrible mistake and experience. Cwestllc (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)