User talk:Coren: Difference between revisions

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

CorenSearchBot False Positive

Reported [1] Hanner as an infringement of [2] - this site is scraping wikipedia content and copying us! Exxolon (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As a courtesy note, you are being discussed at ANI Coren. seicer | talk | contribs 23:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And here.... seicer | talk | contribs 23:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Based on the link http://plumbot.com/Corbin/Hanner.html, the page on plumbot.com should be a copy of Corbin/Hanner. I think when the dab page on Hanner was created on Wikipedia, the original page which has been crawled by Yahoo, caused a possible positive. Before CSBot had a chance to check it out, plumbot.com replaced the content about Corbin/Hanner with the new dab page. So it would appear that the live mirroring system used on plumbot.com has problems with / on article names (i.e. our page on "second" would always replace their content on "first/second"). Does this sound plausible? – Sadalmelik ☎ 08:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  Ooo! Sounds entirely reasonable, and removes at least two layers of confusion.  :-) Thanks for the excellent detective work. — Coren ^(talk) 20:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Substantial Copy Warning

About the warning on these articles:

• Silves Golf
• Castro Marim Golfe

This articles were taken from a site with the GFDL. I see that the CorenSearchBot searches the copyright on the same page of the article, but most of that sites, even with the copyright symbol, take the content from other sites. It's clear their not the owners of that article cause the site were the article is under the GFDL is much older than the copyrighted website. You see, I could have a site that's all copyrighted and may have the necessity to include a public article for useful information purposes. That doesn't mean that the article is now copyrighted, its just placed in a copyrighted website. Yeah, they should make a reference that its a public article but most of the times they don't.

Well, I hope you understand that the articles I published came from a site were there's a reference to GFDL and their older than those copyrighted websites, so that's why I think it prevails.

Thanks for your attention, André Andrett (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

ORDIFcommunication (d) 5 mars 2009 à 10h00 (CET)02/03/09 - ORDIF : Observatoire Régional des Déchets d'Ile-de-France / ORDIF Ile-de-France Region Waste Management Observatory

Permission to reproduce articles or images : http://www.ordif.com/public/rubrique.tpl?id=8981

permissions-fr@wikimedia.org : republication en instance, sur OTRS

De : Cédric Hédont [3] Envoyé : lundi 2 mars 2009 09:55 À : 'permissions-fr@wikimedia.org' Objet : Autorisation pour publier l'œuvre de l'ORDIF sous la licence libre GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License)

Links : - Wikipedia en Français : ORDIF - Observatoire Régional des Déchets d'Ile-de-France

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORDIF_-_Observatoire_R%C3%A9gional_des_D%C3%A9chets_d%27Ile-de-France

- Wikipedia in English : ORDIF Ile-de-France Region Waste Management Observatory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ORDIFcommunication

ORDIFcommunication (d) 5 mars 2009 à 10:00(CET)ORDIFcommunication (d) :Cédric Hédont, Responsable communication de l'ORDIF == —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

Cette permission est adéquate; faites-en note sur la page de discussion et vous pouvez enlever la notice sans problème. — Coren ^(talk) 13:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:WHEEL violation

According to WP:WHEEL and ArbCom precedence, it is not a WHEEL violation to unblock but it is one to reblock without community consensus and discussion. There was no such thing, which puts you in violation. ArbCom has allowed individuals making this mistake to correct it themselves and suffer no penalty. If you do not, I will be forced to take this matter to ArbCom. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should not undo other administrators' blocks without prior discussion" appears rather unambiguous to me. — Coren ^(talk) 01:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This was one admin acting out against community consensus on a report that clearly belonged at Wikiquette and not ANI. The complaint that they acted on included declaring Malleus attacking the user for comments directed to -me-. Thus, Aitias was clearly in error. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's ridiculous, Ottava Rima. The unblock was abusive, as the unblocking admin has just admitted at their talk page. — Aitias // discussion 01:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like formally to request that you reconsider this long block of a productive, if uncivil, editor, which seems to me to be punitive rather than preventive. I have not been involved with this dispute but have interacted with Malleus previously. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think no one should do anything until there's consensus on AN/I. Majorly talk 01:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point. Espresso Addict, please consider me neutral on the propriety of the block. I believe that the blocking admin is discussing this on AN/I as we speak, and that a compromise is in the works. — Coren ^(talk) 01:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(To Majorly) I doubt there will ever be consensus at AN/I on this point. Meanwhile, someone I genuinely consider a valuable contributor is being driven away from the project because of some ill-tempered remarks. Sure, he shouldn't have made them, but I get the impression Malleus baiting is becoming a bit of a sport around some quarters. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get that impression? He brings it on himself by making the comments in the first place. Majorly talk 01:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion appears to be the latest person to be needlessly bating. Nev1 (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response, Coren. I agree it would be better if the original blocking admin were to reconsider. I do hope AN/I can come up with a compromise; in my experience it's better at escalating conflict than defusing it. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(To Majorly) I get the impression what often happens is that an admin makes a comment that can be (mis)interpreted as arrogant, Malleus jumps in and assumes the worst, a whole bunch of admins jump in waving big sticks telling him that his comments are uncivil when simply ignoring them would be the wise course of action, and then everything escalates. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Coren, I support your unblock, but I maybe misunderstood your comment on the AN/I page. To me it seems that you are saying that you took on your Arbitrator role for that re-block. I don't think that should be necessary at all, as it was a good decision that shouldn't have required more than an admin bit for support ...unfortunately the way WP:WHEEL is interpreted currently, it creates the situation where the unblocking admin hold all the cards, and no matter how illogical or out-of-process the unblock was, to re-block would be a worse sin. This situation often rewards the unblocker who acts rashly, so I'm heartened by the fact that you see that the lack of notification of the unblock was unacceptable. Cheers... Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you pretty much explain clearly why I chose to wear the arbitrator cloak while doing that administrative action; I wanted it to be completely clear that I wasn't feeding a circle of wheel warring but undoing a rash unblock that would have been likely to. This is also why I have been careful to take no position on the propriety of the original block, nor engage into further discussion about the possibility of an in-process block alteration. You might say this was an administrative act accompanied by an arbitrator stating sternly "Don't have done that, and nobody else should either." — Coren ^(talk) 21:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Furniture Bank article

I received feedback on my new article that it copied the text on website "www.furniturebanks.org". I am the author and maintainer of the furniturebanks.org website, and therefore there is no copyright or plagerism issue. I am new to Wikipedia, this is my first submission. I appreciate any help you can provide.

Swingslide (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For all your hard work in helping the site a better, more welcoming environment. Your ArbCom work thus far has been outstanding, and I sincerely regret opposing you. Keep up the good work - you're a fantastic arb. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)