Jump to content

User talk:Coren/Archives/2009/April

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Saint-Hilaire-de-Dorset

I created this page modeled on another one (Saint-Evariste-de-Forsyth) that your bot confused as the same. I verified the content on both and everything should be alright. --Andy28203 (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Your bot caught me...

All I'm making is a collection of small stubs, but they're legit. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 00:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether the bot is {{bots}} compliant. Then you could put that on your talk page and you wouldn't get any warnings (you're allowed to remove the warnings yourself, of course!). - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It isn't, to avoid someone not wanting general botspan from being warned; but I can whitelist specific editors when they expect to get a lot of warnings due to some batch process. Don't hesitate to ask if you need it, AlbertHerring. — Coren (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration - Unjustified ban of users

FYI: I have filed a request for arbitration regarding recent bans of user accounts from which no activities could be found that dispupt Wikipedia. The arbitration request can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Block of editors related to sockpuppet Jvolkblum You are not mentioned as an involved party, I send you this message for your information. I hope that your opinion there can contribute to solve the issue. Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 22:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Feedback?

Hi. I'm dealing with what seems to me to be a WP:BLP issue at Oxford English Limited. (There was an OTRS letter about it this morning, but not complaining of BLP.) I found a fair amount of unsourced, mostly nonsense but to me troublesome text including allegations like, "The sexual politics of the group was bizarre. One female undergraduate had to organise a complaint from the girls at Wadham College regarding the crepuscular activities of its cult leaders" (which certainly smacks of sexual harassment allegations). I removed the text, which has now been restored twice by one contributor, who may or may not be the registered counterpart of the IP that originally added it. He indicates that sources are forthcoming. I've opened a ticket at BLPN, here, but am wondering if I should just protect the article pending resolution. I've only played the BLP card once, really, and would prefer not to overuse it, but this material is really perplexing me. The text is just so bizarre that if it hadn't been placed on March 29th, I'd be looking around for Ashton Kutcher. If you have time and inclination, could you give me a second administrator opinion? I'm inclined to think that the material needs to stay out pending consensus at BLPN (typically slow-going), but don't want to protect the article or otherwise use admin tools if it doesn't look as much of a concern to others as it does to me...especially since I've been taking care of my post-operative husband for days now, and am pretty sleep-deprived. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, the material needs to stay out until it is sourced and that agreement has been reached as to its relevance and suitability (even if sourced, it may not be appropriate because of WP:UNDUE or WP:COATRACK). Make it clear when reverting that this is a BLP violation, warn the reverting editor, and don't hesitate to enforce the removal. — Coren (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks so much for confirming my gut check. The whole thing is just so bizarre. I fit hadn't been added on the 29th, I'd think it was an April Fool's joke! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Second lining

I received this message:

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Second lining, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.nojazzfest.com/chat/archive/index.php/t-1731.html.

The article Second lining is not new. I just moved the article from Second line to a newly created page named Second lining to be able to redirect Second line to a disambiguation page. If the content really was copied... it was not me who copied it.--Rectilinium (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way... can you move the history? That would be great.--Rectilinium (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm fixing this now. Rectilinium, in the future, please be very careful when moving page content. You need to use the actual "move" button at the top of the page rather than just copying the wikimarkup — it's an absolute requirement to preserve the attribution history of each article under the terms of the GFDL. Copying also leads to all sorts of confusion like the one exhibited by the bot and by User:RadioFan. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Should be all fixed. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi... thanks Bbatsell. Finally learned something new :)... Im quite a new user and its the first time that I made such a "movement". I didnt know, that I had to use the move-button. Thanks for the explaination. I'll make it correctly the next time.--Rectilinium (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Flueless fire place

I wrote a section regarding flueless fires on the website http://www.flueless-fire.co.uk, i was using this to create a section on here but "For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted" Please accept that we give permission for this information to be used and i would appreciate if you could re-establish this post —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhalsted (talk • contribs) 15:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


No idea where to put this. But I was told to leave a thing on your page to say that the duplicate found was not correct. thanks.

RFA

'tis transcluded. Time for weenies and marshmallows.—Kww(talk) 22:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of the Tsolomitis wiki page

I am the author of the Tsolomitis wiki page which you just deleted.

I am compiling all my family history and the wiki page you just deleted because of copyright violations is in fact incorrect.

The website that the information came from is in fact run by my family and i have permission to compile (as in directly copy all text) into a wiki page which is what you call copyright infringement even though the text, website and everything else associated with it is the sole property of my family.

James geortsis (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Signed By James Tsolomitis Geortsis —Preceding unsigned comment added by James geortsis (talk • contribs)

The content of this page are written by Michael Gruneberg, who also wrote the contents of the pages on the Linkwordlanguages website. He is the copyright holder of both texts so there is no breach of copyright on either entry Michael GrunebergLibrarydeal (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the guide to requesting and formalizing permission to use copyrighted works on Wikipedia. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. — Coren (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete of JUMP - The IAESTE Training and Motivation Seminar

It is right that the text is quite the same. They acctually took it from www.iaeste.org/jump which is the original and all typed by me. So I have the copyright. I wanted to add more text, so please to not delete the page.... Thanks for the support! Aekeller (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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. — Coren (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Refused to cooperate?

Hi Coren (cross posting from Roger's talk page because you implemented the block), curious about this edit. Looking through the user's edits I agree the portion that pertains to Scientology is cause for concern. That said, it is unprecedented (to the best of my knowledge) to indefinitely block someone preemptively in that manner, without arbitration vote at the proposed decision, without an outing or legal threat or other user action that would compel immediate response. He does edit productively to other areas (most recently the copyfraud article, etc.), and he has indeed participated to this case, although before he was named as a party. From this vantage it could very well appear that he foresaw no further need to post, or (at worst) anticipated a topic ban proposal. Could you explain, please? DurovaCharge! 04:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, to make things perfectly clear, this was not a Committee block. My action has the support of a number of Arbitrators, and there will be a corresponding finding to that effect on the proposed decision page, but the decision to go ahead with the block is mine alone.

That said, the reason I made the block is a fundamentally principled one: a community effort like Wikipedia functions because of the social contact to heed and follow the basic rules of conduct that constitute our framework. We routinely block editors when it becomes obvious that they are unable or unwilling to abide those rules; and I can think of no clearer and less ambiguous evidence than an explicit refusal to agree to them (even when it was poorly worded as a pseudolegal disclaimer).

Ultimately, what Wikipedia has as "terms of service" is the amalgamation of policies, guidelines and community expectations; Fahrenheit451 is correct, at least, in that he is in no way obligated to agree to them— but then all that is left to him is the right to leave. Now, of course, if I have misunderstood his refusal, or if he wishes to withdraw it, then I will be more than glad to unblock him (noting, however, that the arbitration case will proceed with him as a named party regardless of his decision in the matter).

I'll not argue that this position is a bit more... hardline than traditional. But I see this declaration of his in exactly the same way that I would see someone stating outright that they will ignore WP:V, or that they will sock around a block— and those also traditionally have led to swift, immediate blocks. — Coren (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hardline? Try coercive. His name wasn't even on the proposed decision page and he hadn't been blocked in three years. This came with no warning, and it's completely outside of both process and policy. This isn't a court of law; you don't jail people for contempt of ArbCom. He wasn't even uncivil. Bad block. I'll be glad to discuss and would prefer to handle it this way, but am also quite prepared to take it to the admin boards. DurovaCharge! 05:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I am, however, heading to bed. So let's both sleep on this. DurovaCharge! 05:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
As an afterthought, I'm left wondering where his asserted opt-out was taking us if it wasn't to a Florida court, relying on the Uniform Commercial Code. And, by extension, if he doesn't accept being an involved party, is there any realistic prospect of him accepting a topic ban or any other restriction? In the circumstances, on top of the examples mentioned by Coren, I don't see the block as any more coercive or unusual than a NLT block for which there is mountains of precedent.  Roger Davies talk 11:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
"Coercive"? That is what any involuntary sanction is. Whenever someone is blocked, or topic banned, or even just warned we are — pretty much by definition — attempting to "compel by force of authority, pressure or force". You've done that yourself thousands of times (and, indeeed, you are attempting to do so to me now). — Coren (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the substance of the block: I disagree with you completely. If an editor states "I don't want to follow your rules", then the only proper response is "Don't let the door hit you on the way out". We are too big, and have too much work keeping the encyclopedia running as smoothly as it is, to take on the malcontents and protesters. We extend every courtesy and every effort to allow people the benefit of the doubt when they are disruptive— in the hope that they do not understand the rules. Someone that doesn't want to play nice? Internet is big enough that they can find some other occupation elsewhere.

The block is good, and IMO more blocks like this should be given out. I'm not going to unblock; but if you feel this requires the wider review of a noticeboard, then I'm not going to stop you. — Coren (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Coren, I have never seen anything like this during arbitration before. Fahrenheit451 had over 6000 edits, was not an SPA, and did nothing worse than civilly decline to give further evidence in a case where s/he had already participated. Even disruptive SPAs don't get indeffed while arbitration is ongoing unless, like Ilena of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal case, they do something that would be indeffable under any circumstances (in her case outing another editor's real identity). At worst, Fahrenheit451 could be called uncooperative, and as such the remedies when they were posted and voted upon might go a bit harsher than otherwise. This is an unprecedented grab for autocratic power by an arbitrator and I must oppose it. Election to the Committee does not elevate you above the norms of this website. DurovaCharge! 15:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really a question of being merely uncooperative, though. There's no exemption for threats directed towards ArbCom in WP:NLT; as Roger points out above, Fahrenheit451's statement can reasonably be interpreted as threatening legal action should the case continue, and he may be blocked on that basis alone. Kirill [pf] 15:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Please explain how that constitutes a threat. Editors routinely invoke spurious legal rationales of what they think their rights are, and if those rationales do not constitute threats of legal action then we ignore the statements. I see no fundamental difference between this and the complaints Commons occasionally gets from editors who want to upload images according to US law only, instead of the stricter site policies there. We explain why our policies exceed their expectations; we ask them to respect that. Many times they change their minds and abide by policy. Did Fahrenheit make any statement beyond what I see on the page? If he emailed the Committee to say I will take you to court, or if he made some onsite post to that effect that needed to be deleted or oversighted then I will strike through everything I've written here and give Coren a barnstar. But if he simply said a longwinded form of 'I think I don't have to give more evidence' (which is what this looks like to me), then off to AN this goes. I'll wait a reasonable period for reply before taking this any farther. Perhaps I misunderstand; what's apparent at this point simply astounds me. DurovaCharge! 15:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
And to clarify further, when ScienceApologist announced at his user page that he intended to disregard your topic ban, you did not siteban him preemptively--you waited for him to actually violate the restriction and then voted upon further remedy in an orderly manner. As yet, Fahrenheit451's name still does not even appear on the proposed decision page. DurovaCharge! 16:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall that SA was invoking any legal rationales in his announcement, though. As far as I'm concerned Fahrenheit451 is merely blocked until he withdraws his legal claim, not banned in any more substantive manner. Kirill [pf] 16:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) You and I have very differing interpretations of how 'I think I don't have to give more evidence' may be worded, I think. From my perspective, posting a notice that one refuses to participate in arbitration on a contractual level is inherently an implicit threat of taking the matter into the legal system, regardless of whether a specific intent to do so has been explicitly stated at this point; because the statement has no relevance outside of a context of legal action, it seems reasonable to assume that the context of legal action is what the person making it had in mind—and, consequently, that the statement was intended to call up that same context in the minds of the targets of the statement. It exudes a threat of legal action in the same way that "That's a nice house. Would be a shame if anything were to happen to it" exudes a threat of violence, in other words.
(That the legal rationale happens to be spurious is not, I think, particularly relevant; one doesn't need a legitimate rationale in order to bring a lawsuit.) Kirill [pf] 16:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well then Kirill, look at it this way: it happens that I am a named party to the current case as well. And I don't think I have to give any more evidence either. For all I know the Committee might enter a remedy on me too (although it hasn't happened either, I can't read your minds). So I invoke whatever rationale Fahrenheit451 was citing: note that neither Fahrenheit451 nor I say anything about what we might do if these supposed rights are violated. Now if you intend to indef me for this post, please wait half an hour. I'm uploading a restoration of an Easter egg roll at the White House lawn from 1911 while we discuss this, and I'd like to get it nominated at FPC in time for the holiday. Might take a bit longer to straighten out if you truly do see any threat in this statement. Regards, DurovaCharge! 16:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to squeeze a word in here edgeways, he wasn't actually asked to do anything. He just, um, withdraw unilaterally and reserved his rights, citing the UCC as justification. Anyhow I'd better leave you in peace with your egg rolling.  Roger Davies talk
I'm sorry, but you can't voluntarily declare yourself a party and then try to reference Fahrenheit451's rationale, since the substantive point of his claim concerns adding him as a party in the first place. You'll have to come up with a different threat.
In any case, I choose to invoke IAR and not block you for your attempts at threatening us, since you're obviously not taking this seriously. :-)
Good luck with your restoration! Kirill [pf] 17:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia's newest featured picture candidate. Feel free to indef me now. Cheers. :)
Lol! Kirill, please check the case. I am named as the filing party. And note that I have not been asked to provide any more evidence either (indeed, have gotten hints from one or two of your colleagues that what I've already supplied is a bit much to read). Now do be nice and unblock this other established editor in good standing of four years' experience. Give him the same chances you gave ScienceApologist; he's been far less trouble. Happy holidays, DurovaCharge! 17:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Durova, have you noticed, during all that, that F.451 has yet to even request being unblocked? If they do so, and withdraw the legalish posturing, he's but one click away from being unblocked. — Coren (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Down from legal threat to legalish posturing? Which policy are you citing for having blocked him: Wikipedia:No legalish posturing? Tsk, tsk. He shouldn't need to ask. DurovaCharge! 17:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm just stating that their legal threat is poorly stated and based upon a very incorrect pop-understanding of contract and commerce law— WP:NLT has no provision for poor legal arguments and flawed reasoning; "legalish posturing" is an apt description of the nature of their legal threat. — Coren (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Right, this point is important. Although I am skeptical that there was a legal threat (I described it as "silliness"), NLT blocks are not usually permanent; they're just formally indefinite. They're reversed as soon as the party withdraws the threat. If Fahrenheit451 clarifies that no threat was intended, we would be done here. Cool Hand Luke 17:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Fellows, this isn't even a threat:

"I hereby refuse this contract and any hidden contracts or contracts of adhesion connected with it. This is done in accordance with State of Florida Law. I reserve all rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)"

That's all he said; be reasonable about it. DurovaCharge! 17:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

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 fail to understand how you could not see this. — Coren (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
We deal with similar situations all the time in copyright disputes, and unless the editor specifically threatens a consequence we ignore the spurious reasoning. DurovaCharge! 17:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Then you are being generous in your enforcement of NTL— I'm supposing here that copious assumptions of good faith on your part are the primary reason. In this case, we are discussing someone who has had years to learn our policies, and who went out of their way to make a legal statement/disclaimer in multiple fora. — Coren (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

← I've pasted this discussion to AN for broader input. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I take it you'll be unsurprised when your bot is blocked for talking about violations of copyright law, then? After all, it is saying that it wants X [deletion of the article] to happen according to some law. --Random832 (contribs) 12:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. or maybe someone should just block the next person to attach {{GFDL}} to an image upload - that's legalese, right? --Random832 (contribs) 12:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Direct-coupled

I have removed Coren's "duplicate article" tag from Direct-coupled because I don't think it is relevant to a disambig page. Biscuittin (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

SkyWriter (Tim)

I noticed User:SkyWriter's block. It was based on NLT. He has stated "I've threatened no legal action". I believe this can be taken as a "rescinded" legal threat, or the absence of one to begin with. The NLT page states "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." As he has stated that he does not intend to pursue any legal recourse, may his NLT block be removed? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coren, could you explain more fully please? You note an OTRS ticket: was there an offsite component to this editor's actions that merited indeffing? DurovaCharge! 03:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
As an admin acting upon an unblock request by SkyWriter, I'd also appreciate it if you could tell us which edit triggered this block. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The same OTRS ticket was cited in the blocks for Alastair Haines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and for SkyWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please could you explain this more fully if possible? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As I remember it SkyWriter/Tim was blocked as the proxy who made off-wiki contact with OTRS in relation to Alasatir Haines [1][2]. If Tim was (mis)identified as that proxy that would explain the block. But there maybe more to it - if so a little info would help a lot. BTW Coren, did Alastair send you an email? (I'm not asking about content - just rather did he attempt to explain things to you?)--Cailil talk 14:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I was with family over easter. Give me a few to catch up and I'll respond. — Coren (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with (on SkyWriter's talk page). — Coren (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I was hoping the holiday weekend had something to do with the delay. Have you checked your email? DurovaCharge! 15:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm in the process of catching up to the 400-odd non-spam email accumulated over a three day weekend.  :-/ — Coren (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to follow up. DurovaCharge! 16:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm done catching up, but I saw no email from you to me or arbcom-l since the 31st. — Coren (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Have you changed email addresses? I used the one you use for gchat; it's all I have. DurovaCharge! 17:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Oooh! No. That one only exists for gchat! I never check it. Imma going to do that just now, then, but WP:AC has the "right" email address to reach me. — Coren (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense then. The gchat was the only one I had. DurovaCharge! 17:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot not logged in?

Looks like the bot is editing from an IP. – Toon(talk) 20:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Oy! First time it went so long without reloading config that its login cookie expired. Fix't. — Coren (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep. A month after my restart of it following a blunder. That's a cookie lifetime allright. Thanks for pointing it out to me. — Coren (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

== Help with

== Hi I can't seem the get the standard

to appear on the page P=NP Proof. MY problem is the article already contains built in noted citations arranged such a way that they demonstrate the computability of the work. How do I then arrange to prevent the P=NP Solution and P=NP Proof articles up to code? Can you tell me why it's flagged maybe or help me out here. I am really working at this and have the sources to prove it. Just having a little problem with our temperment at this beloved Wiki. Floing99 (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ping

<AOL voice>You've got mail!</AOL voice> --Vassyana (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am the Editor in Chief of the Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences. JASSP is an Open Access Publication and some of the text used for the Wikipedia Articles was taken from the JASSP web-site http://www.jassp.org . That is ok since I have the permission of the Editorial Board to do so. I have also added serveral references to show that the Journal is a legitimate publication. Just in case I will add more to this discussion page: Intute Best of the Web: http://www.intute.ac.uk/socialsciences/cgi-bin/fullrecord.pl?handle=20090107-1428075 Southern Perspectives: http://www.southernperspectives.net/book/journal-of-alternative-perspectives-in-the-social-sciences Georgetown Library: http://library.georgetown.edu/newjour/j/msg04893.html Red de Jovenes Investigadores en Filosofia: http://www.redjif.org/red/index.php?option=com_resource&controller=article&article=252&category_id=51&Itemid=116 Peter Scott's Library Blog: http://xrefer.blogspot.com/2008/12/journal-of-alternative-perspectives-in.html Criss Library Focus On Online: http://focusononline.blogspot.com/2008/12/journal-of-alternative-perspectives-in.html E-Journals.org: http://www.e-journals.org/ Open Access News: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/12/new-oa-social-science-journal.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by VonFeigenblatt (talk • contribs) 22:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

See ANI#Repeated unilateral re-creation of deleted article. The article would have been speedily deleted without the copyright issues. —SlamDiego←T 10:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Kohalu (Nishikigoi)

I've transferred the information from Kohaku (Nishiki Koi), as it was a mispelling. Appropriate redirect and notes in Talk sections have been added. Aquafanatic (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks for protecting my talkpage. I guess I'm the easiest target so he started with me first. Is there any way for me to see what was written? I'd like to know if he was right or not. I don't know, maybe e-mail me the text or something. I'd like to have an idea of how close he was. Again, thanks for the help. Padillah (talk) 12:05, 17 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)

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. DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 18:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thanks heaps, Coren :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:19, 21 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)

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.delanoygabsadds 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)

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)

Shahidul Islam

Shahidul Islam(b ~1977) is an Indian journalist for urdu. He is the News Editor of Hindustan Express. His columns appear regularly on front page known by Barjasta. These are syndicated to several newspapers, including The Qaumi Awaz,Qaumi Tanzeem(Patna+Ranchi)Etemaaddaily(Hyderabad),Munsif,Inquilab etc India and alqamar online newspaper of Pakistan.

Biography

Shahidul Islam was born in Bihar on January 25th, 1977. He graduated with an MA in Urdu from T.M.Bhagalpur University in Bihar. Shahidul islams's father Syed Md.Ali by professon a Doctor.He is related to the Sufi-ism hero Shaikh Sultan Alaihirrahmah,who was khalifa of Hazrat mujaddid Alifsani Rahmatullah Alaih Sarhindi from his father's side.

Career

Shahidul islam began his journalist career in Munger(Bihar) with the Qaumi Tanzeem as a Districtt Corresspondent /journalist with the Patriot in 1995. Later he also worked as a incharge of Qaumi Tanzeem,Ranchi and Spesial correspondent for Aalami Sahara. He has received journalistic award from Khanquah-e-shahbazia,Bhagal pur in 2004.

Writing style Shahidul Islam a has been noted to have socialist view point and always critcise governmentl openions about Indian Muslims . Many of his articles criticise government policy, and generally reflect pro-minority, secular and feminist slants. HE has lashed out at many influential sections of the political spectrum. he has defended Indian Muslims against the charge of being anti-national and pro-Pakistani.

[citation needed] — Coren (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Two articles have been listed on WP:SCV as possible copies, but the original pages don't exist. One is Edib Kürkçü[3], which may be possible if the bot has access to deleted pages or an old version of the database (assuming this is what has happened, I tagged it for speedy deletion); the other is St Valentines Massacre, where the link is broken as it contains "'"[4]: replacing this with an apostrophe (either type) both have been redirects to Saint Valentine's Day massacre (a completely different article about a different subject) since 2007 so I don't know where the text found by CorenSearchBot could be from - unfortunately the bot doesn't mention the page or revision ID. —Snigbrook 21:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That'll usually happen when there is a rename involved, but CSBot found the page before it got moved away. Most of the time, that just happens when the page that was copied was a recreation of a deleted page (and thus findable through search engines) that got recreated under the new name. This is what happened with Edib Kürkçü for instance. The Valentine day example I don't get, exactly, but it looks like the recreation of an old version of a page that has since been deleted and redirected to something else. It's confusing, but I don't see any way around something like this happening occasionally. — Coren (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Jose Carlos Arias - Isles Internationale Université (European Union) - Article Copyright

Content in The Isles Internationale Université (European Union) website, reproduced within the article's content is considered as open access or public domain content; it belongs to the IIU Press and Reserach Centre AC, which I represent, therefore I am fully entitled to donate this content to Wikipedia.--Jose Carlos Arias (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the guide to requesting and formalizing permission to use copyrighted works on Wikipedia. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. — Coren (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Basboll / Jehochman

Hi Coren, I've just seen your comment on the A/E requests page. In this case, Thomas Basboll and Jehochman have actually quite diffent POVs on the issue. --Cs32en (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say they did, simply that Thomas's attempt doesn't look like actual consensus building. — Coren (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and your observation of what would be a general tendency in the topic area is certainly not wrong. I don't say I'm able to understand everything that is going on there, but Thomas might have felt encouraged by the conversation with Jehochman on Jehochman's talk page. — Cs32en (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Copied My Own Text to Wikipedia Article

Hello,

My article was marked because I ignorantly copied some text from my own website to the Wikipedia article I created. Please tell me what else to do to avoid deletion.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmontala (talk • contribs) 08:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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. — Coren (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

OK Coren, thanks. Can I see the deleted article? Mmontala (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to tell me its name— I wasn't the one who deleted it. — Coren (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Julia Piera wiki page problem

I got this message while trying to post a new page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Piera):

The CorenSearchBot has performed a web search with the contents of this page, and it appears to include a substantial copy of: http://openlibrary.org/a/OL5861311A?m=view&v=3


I wrote the article in Open Library and thought it would be good to add it here. I have also translated the original Spanish Wikipedia site for Julia Piera (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Piera) which I also created and maintain.

Please advise.

Chiaramerino (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coren/Archives/2009/April&oldid=1142942212"