Jump to content

User talk:Coren/Archives/2011/December

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


Brown v. Texas

I received the following message:

[quote]I have performed a web search with the contents of Brown v Texas, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/legal/police/brownvtx.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted.[/quote]

The quotes are legit - they are taken from the Supreme Court case itself, so its now accident that more than one person would quote the same sentences from the same case. There's no copyright issue here.

Jonathan.robie (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoooo!!!

CorenSearchBot is back online! Yay :) Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 02:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

With many thanks to the Foundation! The negotiations for some sort of deal with a search provider having stalled for the time being, they have provided a subscription to a pay service from Yahoo for copyright assessment bots' use.
Incidentally, anyone currently running such a bot can contact me to coordinate access to that API under the same terms in a couple of days (once things have been tested and shown to be stable). I have the access and authorization to permit other bot operators to have their own BOSS keys for operation on other wikis. — Coren (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Great news! Thanks to everyone who helped.--SPhilbrickT 02:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hm, that's kinda crummy...we have to pay Yahoo. As if the fact that helping the largest encyclopedia in the world isn't enough for them...hmph. Ah well, we've gotta do what we've gotta do. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 02:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, they're a business. Besides, the talks with search providers are ongoing and we may yet strike a deal in the future with one of them – this current arrangement simply allows the actual service to continue in the meantime. — Coren (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hm, should the bot go through the pages in Category:Unreviewed new articles created via the Article Wizard from July 2011 - Category:Unreviewed new articles created via the Article Wizard from November 2011, to check for any copyvios that weren't caught manually? →Στc. 02:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Web searches on article content get quickly less informative the longer a page has existed, this is why CSBot only looks at new articles. You can do spot checks at User:CorenSearchBot/manual, but I don't think it'd be a good idea to do so automatically. — Coren (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It's nice to see the Foundation throwing it's weight behind this. If they ever defund this initiative, hit me up. No promises, but I'd be willing to chip in if I could afford to do so. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It's surprisingly expensive in the long run – not at the level of making a dent in the Foundation budget, but enough that an individual would be hard-pressed to justify the expense (otherwise, I would have done so myself some time ago).

    Thanks for offering, though. It's appreciated. — Coren (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Hmmm, not sure. That's clearly a bug where CSBot reported the page name as the source rather than the url where it found it; lemme look into it before the logs rotate. — Coren (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It's really odd – it's clearly a bug but I can't reproduce it. I've turned on some extra logging so I'll know what happened if it occurs again. — Coren (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Template test with your bot?

Hi Coren,

Congrats on getting your bot back up and running! I know a lot of people around here missed it :)

Not sure if you've heard anything about this, but Steven Walling and I are actually running some A/B tests of templates delivered by various tools and bots (we have documentation about this at our task force page in case you're interested). So far, we've tinkered with the templates delivered by Huggle, Twinkle, XLinkBot, SDPatrolBot, and we'll be starting an ImageTaggingBot test as soon as we get the templates written.

Would you be interested in adding your bot to the list? It doesn't require much work from your end; we write up the alternate test templates with the help of anybody from the community who's interested, then either run them through a template randomizer (like this one) or ask you to throw in some randomization into your bot's code. Then we just let your bot do its thing for a few weeks (depending on how many messages it delivers) and gather data to analyze. We're just looking to see if there are any changes we can make to the length, layout, or tone of the messages that will make them more effective.

So, please let me know if you'd like to participate! If you have any questions, I'm around on IRC most of the day (U.S. West Coast time), and you can always get in touch with me via email or talk page. Looking forward to hearing from you, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Imma reply on your talk page. — Coren (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Could use some extra eyes on something...

If you get a chance could you take a look at Chemo (comics), ites edit history, and this editors contribution history.

I'm approaching a few old hands at Comics since there is something odd here and I want to make sure it isn't just me. I'm also approaching you and a few other Arbs since this may impact Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian and I'd like some general imput.

- J Greb (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. — Coren (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

When I get a possible copyvio, I typically want to go to Duplication Detector and look at the matches. Would it be possible to include a link in the output to DD if the tool finds a copyvio, ideally with the params set to fill in the URL fields? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, there is a link to the detector in the template CSBot puts on the page; did you mean somewhere else? — Coren (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I meant on the output from the manual check -- sorry, I should have been more specific. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. Retroactively, even. (The joys of transclusion).  :-) Lemme know if you need something else. — Coren (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Outstanding. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Too fast

Could you have Corensearchbot wait a couple minutes before tagging, then rechecking, if the source is another wiki page? I created Barratry (admiralty law) as a new article using content from Barratry and in the three seconds that both versions existed, the bot tagged the new page. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There really isn't a way to do that; consensus has already been well established that it's the first revision that counts (since further editing that would make it look less like the original source would be a derivative copyright violation that's just all the harder to track down) – so the first revision must be the one that triggers the notice.

That said, page splits are pretty much the only case where an internal copy is okay – most of the times it's cut-n-paste without attribution and that requires intervention. It's a little annoying having to remove the template, but at least this way we're sure that human eyes will look at the move/split and make sure attribution is done right. — Coren (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And in this case, it wasn't... Dondegroovily, please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia - you need to provide attribution by way of an edit summary in the history of the article. –xenotalk 21:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Detection of vandalism

Hey Coren. I am working with a Psychology class at the U of T. There are 1700 students in the class and a bit of plagiarism has been noted. Is there an automated way to check all 2500 edits they have made? There are plans for three more classes of this size to begin editing soon.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

CSBot is surprisingly ill-suited for anything but whole pages, though if that's what you need to check you need but add a wikilink to the suspect pages to the manual check page. It tends to fare poorly with pages that have been around for a while, though, as those tend to be mirrored all over the place from the Wikipedia source. — Coren (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Csb-notice-pageincludes vs. Csb-notice-pageincluded?

{{talkback|Maryana (WMF)}}

Replied. — Coren (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Robert farber Photographer

You have previously deleted the subject article as a copyright violation. Did you check if the current incarnation of the article is a copyright violation when you declined the A7? I can't check myself, as I am blocked from viewing the website identified in the deletion log. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't anymore; the reason I looked at the article again was specifically to see if it had been recreated with the copyvio. — Coren (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Late comment

Hi, I have added a late comment, which follows one of your comments in the discussion over amendment of an abortion topic remedy, and is mostly in response to it. I wasn't going to comment earlier on what you said, but on re-reading the page I think now I need to.DMSBel (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW the tone of it is rather biting, in that regard its not intended to be personal. Maybe I'll mellow if I stay around long enough, but after feeling calm about the result for a bit I seem to be feeling rather un-mellow over it again. Sorry but giving a bigger stick to Admin, so they can sit on the sidelines watch the proceedings, then come in with a club is a really bad idea.DMSBel (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I have refactored the comments mentioned above[[1]]. I took the liberty to, since as far as I could see no one has yet responded to them in particular. If it is true as one of the arbiters states, that some of the committee are more community facing than others and it is not a systemic thing that comments are ignored, I have to assume the lack of responce to my comments from Arbcom is due to not wishing to communicate with an editor they topic banned. Yet I was there at Arbcom invitation. A basic acknowledgement anywhere (my page, your page) generally tends to prevent two things someone going on and on, and someone becoming apathetic. As you can see in my case I tend towards going on and on when I don't get any reply. DMSBel (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

An Eye for Detail

Your bot is overzealous. It tagged my article An Eye for Detail, about a Donald Duck story, as a copyvio of http://aneyefordetail.com, seemingly just because of the name "An Eye for Detail". JIP | Talk 13:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring and CorenSearchBot

You could prevent false positives like [2] by excluding words like "refactor" in edit summary. jnestorius(talk) 19:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Case page

Hey Coren, I think you removed the section I'd added somehow when you added your comments [3]. Would you mind restoring? Hobit (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops. So I have. Fix't; sorry about that. — Coren (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I could have done it myself, but wasn't sure what the best way forward was. Hobit (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Article re: Robert Hart Baker

I moved my text from my article about Robert Hart Baker (Conductor) to one entitled just Robert Hart Baker and am in the process of deleting the older article. If you can help me delete the old page...as I am a newb...that would be great. Page to be deleted is http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Robert_Hart_Baker,_Conductor

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Decwrites (talk • contribs) 13:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

BBC Four idents error

Hi, the message left on my talk page seems to be in error as the page in question is about the on-screen identity of a TV channel and unrelated to The Weather Channel is as possible to be. Just to be sure, I have searched the site you linked to and I could find nothing about the visual identity of BBC Four or BBC Knowledge. It appears this is in error. I have stated this on the article talk page and have therefore removed the template. Regards Rafmarham (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

And indeed that was the right thing to do. Sorry for the trouble, the rate of false positives is fairly low, but never zero.  :-) — Coren (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page

Forgot to mention that there's one revision that the bot added that has the content - 465725897. Calabe1992 00:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Gah, evil bots! All bot writers should be sho– err, wait.  :-) — Coren (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Lol, thanks. Calabe1992 00:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess really in truly the bot's edit summary should go as well, didn't think about it before. Calabe1992 00:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Without the context, I don't think that's significant enough to worry about. — Coren (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, good enough. Calabe1992 00:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Goodie, he's back. And I think two other revisions have it now as well. Calabe1992 00:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Favonian grabbed it. Cheers, Calabe1992 00:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Third Uninvolved Party Needed for Edit Resolution

Please help to ensure that Prof. Joel Mata's publications regarding life at All-Saints including Filipa Moniz as member of Military Order of Santiago is taken into consideration on Wikipedia's the page about Filipa Moniz, since all my edits are immediately deleted.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible bug with CorenSearchBot

See this diff; CorenSearchBot appears to have tagged the article as a copyright violation of itself. Could it be some error with the ampersand in the title? Logan Talk Contributions 05:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As a talk page stalker I happened to spot this. As you said, it is very likely something with the "&" sign. Some time back, another bot ended up in an edit war with itself due to a similar issue with underscores and spaces on the bad image list. Calabe1992 05:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
It is a bug, but not that one: Yahoo manages to index our own pages so fast that they are found by the search the bot does upon creation; I meant to add a guard against that but didn't get the time yet. I'll bump that up on my todo list. — Coren (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. :) Logan Talk Contributions 18:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

List of museums in the Texas Gulf Coast

Actually, that was just a split from List of museums in Texas. A rather old article, at that. The publication you cited appears to have lifted its list from Wikipedia. If you still have doubts, please go back and look at List of museums in Texas. Maile66 (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

ISO/IEC 18000

Actually, I could not find the page were the information should have come from. Nevertheless, the information about ISO/IEC 18000 is coming from ISO itself, but is a comprehensive summary for the benefit of the users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoePP (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As a rule, ISO standards cannot be reproduced on Wikipedia. ISO itself holds the copyrights and they do not distribute information under a free license. — Coren (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

FC Seoul transfers page

Hi I;m editing FC Seoul transfes page now Plese give me enough time Thanks.

Final revision (hopefully) for the CorenSearchBot test

Hey Coren, Maryana and I have edited the templates for the test pretty heavily, including writing the "experienced" version. We tried to make it more conversational and less K-12. :) Take a look and let us know what you think. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
The CorenSearchBot is awesome. Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 06:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Update on CSBot? December edition

Just checking in on where CSBot is at, since it's nearly 2012, and I would like it to work before the world ends. So that we can say that mankind accomplished something. --Lexein (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The bot was restarted 11 days ago: Special:Contributions/CorenSearchBot. MER-C 09:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Yay! I'm chuffed. Is the story of its negotiated return to form online anywhere? --Lexein (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Not as far as I know. You're about to receive an email regarding your own bot, BTW. — Coren (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Huh? I don't have a bot. Wish I did. You mean I'm getting one for Xmas?--Lexein (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to ignore my obvious senility: I was confusing you with someone else.  :-) The short story, by the way, is "The negotiations with Google are slow but progressing, but in the meantime the Foundation has opened its wallet so that copyright assessment bots could use a commercial search engine." — Coren (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Congratulations on your years of service to Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that this year's wave of anti-incumbency swept away one of the most distinguished members of ArbCom.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I probably deserve a vacation now, and I fully expected that a reduced committee was considerably less likely to still have a seat for me. It's not like I haven't got plenty to do outside the committee, really, and the aggravation is something anyone can live without.  :-) — Coren (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Allow me to second Kiefer.Wolfowitz's thanks for your service and disappointment that we won't get the benefit of it in the upcoming year. 28bytes (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I was disappointed to see that you won't be returning to the Committee. You had my vote. Anyhow, I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for your work on the Committee; I think you really grew into the role and you did great work. You were a real asset to the Committee, and regardless of whether I've agreed with you about specific decisions, I've always been impressed by your thoughtfulness, clue, and commitment to the project. Enjoy your well-deserved rest. :) MastCell Talk 00:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban clarification

If an editor came into a discussion in the topic area where I had been contributing prior to the topic ban apparently just to tell people I was topic-banned would telling an admin be considered a violation?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, no, but it would be profoundly unwise: the last thing you want is to give everyone the impression that you are unable to let go and intend to extend the battleground to other areas. The very best thing you can do at this time is direct your efforts to some other area of the encyclopedia that holds your interest. — Coren (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
My question was strictly technical.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

My fault?

To the extent that you got blamed for my misadventures with the Abortion proposed decision, you have my sincere apologies. Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No apology is needed; regardless of how you fared on your first case to draft, the concerns that were expressed regarding my speed in the cases I had drafted were legitimate. Everyone has their own strengths, mine just weren't there.  :-) — Coren (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Condolences or Congratulations

Take your pick. :) You did get a much better rating from the voters than from the guides, and ended up with what is an electable score. If some of the new arbs run screaming after they see what the job actually entails, would you return if asked again to serve? --Elonka 03:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. I had already decided before I ran that this should be my last election, one way or the other. Then again, "never say never"; I still care about this project as much as I did yesterday, after all, and while I expect to drift towards the more meta issues for a while, and if there is a gap I can fill and people will have me, I'm not opposed on any kind of principle.

The break will certainly do me good, and I did say I wasn't crazy enough to run before I ran the first time.  :-P — Coren (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, you were the only one of my opponents that I voted for.—Kww(talk) 04:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. — Coren (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Country studies

Hi, Coren. So nice to have CSBot up and running again. :)

I just wanted to drop by and point out to you that Contraloría General de la República de Chile was actually copied from a mirror of Country Study, which is public domain. I'm not sure what's up with the website it was copied from! Some kind of non-standard mirror? But, since the content is Library of Congress, if you don't object, I'll restore the history, tag it with {{Country study}} and let the contributor know how to handle imports of public domain text in the future. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course. You are, after all Our Lady of the Copyright. Your word is like unto a visitation from above.  :-) — Coren (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
LOL! Flatterer. :D Will do, once I finish chopping some bell peppers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
There's something... dissonant... abut the image of Our Lady of the Copyright chopping bell peppers.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Over confident?

This deserves to be way down on your list of priorities but 140% confidence? I'm not sure how to to link directly, but Pinoy Big Brother: Double Up in User:CorenSearchBot/manual.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No, no, this is perfectly reasonable. Look at the circular reference anyways: a thing is more unto like itself than anything else, and the bot profoundly groks that!  :-)

Seriously, though, the '%' metric really only makes sense for external copies given the algorithm, and tends to be some high number meaninglessly over 100% for internal copies. I'll just remove that verbiage completely in that case once I get a minute. — Coren (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

For your ArbCom work. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 04:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. We have disagreed (which is a point in your favor) but as I have said elsewhere you never lost the plot. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I always said you were insane – but at least you're the good kind of insane.  :-) — Coren (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I bet you say that to all the girls. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot malfunction at Buddleja alternifolia 'Argentea

For some reason, the bot indicates that the article Buddleja alternifolia 'Argentea is likely a copy of itself. Not sure if that's a problem beyond this one instance. Curious, though. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And it just did it again with Buddleja davidii 'Attraction', notifying User:Ptelea that, "I have performed a search with the contents of Buddleja davidii 'Attraction', and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Buddleja davidii 'Attraction'." I don't know what it is, but the bot doesn't notice the "other" Wikipedia page is the same page it's being compared to. Still doesn't seem to be widespread, but do you have any ideas on why it's behaving this way? Rkitko (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and there's a bugfix for it that I plan to deploy this evening (EDT). I thought you might have seen the section where this was discussed on this page, but I not this got since archived: the short of it is that the bot gets confused because Yahoo manages to occasionally index a new enwp page before CSBot does its first search (i.e., they actually index enwp live). — Coren (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Notify

Your bot reported me that the article I created List of accolades received by Bodyguard (2011 Hindi film) was a copy from http://tnwap.in/tamilmobile/hindi-movie-ringtones/bodyguard-movie-ringtones.html, but however the website has copied from Wiki page Bodyguard (2011 Hindi film), hence add it to the list as mentioned in your edit notice. Thanks and Cheers. -- Karthik Nadar 07:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Some other topic

All countries around the world aimed at the central government and local minor will potentially cover a total area. List of queens regnant, so I would like to leave from the distinction. Forward this page will continue to update its own.--Yswj700 (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. Perhaps I am lacking the necessary context? — Coren (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain this?

Can you please explain what trigged this edit ? I was not even aware of the site. Compare with check by Duplication Detector. Oceanh (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

CSBot was a bit overzealous. It doesn't work the same way that DD does in order to catch different classes of problems; they overlap but rarely match exactly. That said, that match was clearly a false positive. — Coren (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Oceanh (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images arbitration case

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 19, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Could your bot help with the CCI backlog?

As you may be aware, the CCI backlog is thousands of articles long. Would it be possible for your bot to analyze the diffs listed at CCI so that blatant copyright violations found through the bot could be our first priority? (Or even CCI diffs over a certain bytes added number.) We could then go back and check the remaining articles by hand. Considering that these diffs are probably the most likely source for copyvios in en.wiki, it would make a lot of sense to process them as soon as possible and remove the worst, most blatant copyvios. I know it's not possible for your bot to check all edits because that would be too resource-intensive, but I'm crossing my fingers that this would be possible.... Thanks!! Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem I foresee isn't the resources, but that the rate of false positive is likely to be too high to be very useful: once text has been on Wikipedia for a while, it tends to be mirrored left and right and indexed on search engines, so CSBot's usefulness tends to decrease quite a bit as the material age.
That said, there's nothing that would prevent a test run if you have a suitable subset of material you'd like me to test on – we can then determine how useful the results end up being. — Coren (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you pull all the mainspace diffs out of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Indian Education Program? (Note that this one is in a different format than other CCIs because of the unique circumstances with the education program.) Those haven't been around for too long yet - generally a month or two. Maybe that's already too long for the mirrors, but maybe worth a shot? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Jax_0677

The bot has been tagging lots of the gun laws articles as copy vio, based on various pages from http://fbinicsystem.com/us-gun-laws-by-state/oregon-background-check-and-gun-laws.html

Based on the history of the wiki pages, I think this is likely a mirror of the content (unlabeled). Basically, every state's content is duped, and I don't think that every page was copied by all the various authors from this one site. Anyway, take a look and see if you think it is a mirror.

Gaijin42 (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, i operate the italian copyright bot, i would know if should be possible to have the new credential in order to restart the bot Lusum (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm running left and right due to the holidays, but I'll email you between Christmas and the new year with all the info you need to get your bot back on its feet. Are you running a copy of my code? — Coren (talk) 18:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
no, i use copyright.py of pywikipediabot without modifications, i can try to fix following your code, if it is not too much long, i have no account on pywikipediabot Lusum (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
PS:thanks :) Lusum (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

List of museums in San Francisco Bay Area, California

This was merely a split from List of museums in California, an old pre-existing list that had gotten too large. No copyright violation happened, and the link this bot provided did not lead to a list of any kind of list.Maile66 (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: CorenSearchBot

Your bot was confused and thought that a Wikipedia article was copying content from absoluteastronomy.com, when the fact is it was the other way around. Maybe absoluteastronomy.com can be put on a list of exceptions, or your bot can parse websites for detecting copying of Wikipedia better. Impressive bot, though. --Bxj (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll add the part of it that mirrors Wikipedia contents to the list of exclusions. We recently switched to a new search system, so new mirrors are popping up. It's a bit annoying, but expected. — Coren (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Answer for Yakkasaray

Reguarding the copyvio problem i've answered here. I think it is a bot error and, anyway, the web link doesn't run (maybe a problem of my browser). I hope the issue will be resolved quickly. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 05:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sweet Little '66

Thanks for letting me know. I typed in the title and a blank page came up. This the only article with this title. Thanks letting me know about this. 08:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Chika and Chika (Japan)

Chika had a split tag. I tried to resolve it by creating 2 new articles and making the original a disambiguation page. I created the new articles (1 of which was Chika (Japan)) by cutting and pasting the original and then deleteing the irrelevant parts. After saving them, I went back to the original article and turned it into a disambiguation page and saved it 2 minutes after I had created the new article (that's fast by my standard). Unfortunately your bot had already tagged my new article as a substantial copy of the original. Is there any chance you could persuade the bot to give new articles some time (say an hour) to allow the editor time to tidy up? Op47 (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot incorrectly tagging pages when title contains special characters

Examples: [4] [5] [6] [7]. Note in all four cases, the bot does not replace character entity references e.g. ' → '. Doing this will eliminate these false positives. MER-C 02:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Images

Hi Coren, my reply to AGK here also pretty much answers the question you asked me on the evidence page earlier today. Of course there are other differences between the two articles – those images in Albert Einstein are photographs, not fanciful drawings produced 600 or 1000 years later in a different country.

Where there is a pre-existing debate in the real world, images may be tied to a discernible POV in that debate, and at that point selecting images becomes a question of POV balance. For example, in the abortion case, if I added five bloody images of aborted and sliced foetuses to abortion, that would probably be undue, even if Wikipedia is not censored. One such image, however, might not be undue, if it can be shown that similar images are included in a significant proportion of reliable sources on the article topic. So images can communicate a POV just as much as text, and when article illustration has become such an enormous point of contention, we need to go back to sources: Do they customarily include such images? Is this type of image a key element of a majority or significant minority point of view in our sources that we have to cover? Have we included the types of images that the majority of sources include?

Offensiveness does matter in one respect: if we're upsetting so many people, we had better make sure that we have a good reason that can be traced back to sources, rather than one we have made up ourselves. Passing the buck is not always a bad idea. Best, --JN466 08:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's a completely specious difference. Charlemagne is no more illustrated by photographs, and the artists making representations were also from various nations and at various epochs. The article Muhammad is being treated as a special case only because of a religious taboo in one part of one specific religion. — Coren (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
A Google search is in no way a reliable or encyclopedic source. But on a very, very basic level, if you compare Charlemagne, or Goethe for that matter with Muhammad, image searches for
indicate a fundamental and encyclopedically relevant difference in how each is remembered. The religion has coloured the reception and the sources, and we cannot change that, nor should we depart from sources to pretend that it hasn't. We should reflect the world how it is, not how it would be if Islam had developed a figurative iconography like other religions. No one argues that Wikipedia has to observe a religious taboo – it would be against fundamental Wikipedia policy to do so – but we cannot misrepresent reality, either. Cheers. --JN466 12:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's meaningful: you are not going to see images of (most) anyone else because an "image" of a person through calligraphy is something that's very much unique to that particular Islam demonimation. So, of course you are going to see the written illuminated version amongst the results which you wouldn't for non-islamic figures.

That history of not-quite-representative art through very creative calligraphy is fascinating, but I still don't see how you can leap from "that kind of unique image exists for this person" to "we should avoid using the more general kind to illustrate the article".

(Of course, the article would be sorely lacking if those were absent as well). — Coren (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

My argument is that for the past five years, NPOV/DUE has applied to illustrations as well as to text. So we should feature illustrations in due proportion to their prevalence in the most reliable and most authoritative sources. That's how I would have handled the embryo image as well, in the abortion case -- if that type of illustration is common in RS, inclusion is due; if not, then not. (I haven't researched it in the abortion case.) Equally so for the pregnancy dispute. Season's Greetings! --JN466 17:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Not when that "prevalence" is a side effect of an external factor. I would expect most reliable contemporary sources about Yuri Gagarin to be in Russian, should then our article be written mostly in Russian in order for it to be neutral? — Coren (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 8)

I note Coren bot has tagged Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 8) but not Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 9) or [[Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 10). I suspect it may be correct on this occasion, in which case it ought to have picked up on List of Beverly Hills, 90210 episodes as it was before I started splitting it off. Op47 (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot test

Hey, hope your holidays have been going well. I just wanted to let you know that I checked in with Maryana and we were thinking that, unless you already started and we didn't know, that it's okay if we use the time bit to randomize, meaning it would be test of A-A to B-B. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

pentadic criticism

Hi, I did copy and paste text for the pentadic criticism (and neo-aristotelian criticism ) page from another wiki that seems to have been abandoned (explained on talk pages). There's no explicit statement about IP on that wik that I can find, but I do know about half of the project members, so I can contact them and get back to you, if need be. http://harlotofthearts.org/index.php/harlot/about/editorialPolicies#custom5 Crowdsourced (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Odd result from CorenSearchBot

See [8] - tagging the page as an apparent copy of itself.  An optimist on the run! 16:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

See User_talk:Coren/Archives/2011/December#Possible_bug_with_CorenSearchBot for an explanation.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Wikipedia:Representation

Hi there! My name is Whenaxis, I noticed that you are on the Arbitration Committee. I created a policy proposal called Wikipedia:Representation. I think that this policy would help the Arbitration Committee as well as the Mediation Committee because the goal of this proposed policy is to decrease the amount of time wasted when an unfamiliar editor files a Arbitration or Mediation Committee when other forms of Dispute Resolution have not yet been sought. For example, an editor may come to the Arbitration Committee requesting formal mediation when other dispute resolution areas have not been utilised such as third opinions or request for comments. A representative works much like a legal aid - there to help you for free and:

  • File a formal mediation case or an arbitration case on your behalf
  • Make statements and submit evidence at the case page on your behalf
  • Guide you through the expansive and sometimes complex policies and procedures of Wikipedia

This proposed idea can also help the editor seeking help because it can alleviate the stress and anxiety from dispute resolution because mediation and arbitration can be intimidating for those who are unfamiliar.

I would highly appreciate your comments on this proposal at: Wikipedia talk:Representation. Cheers and Happy New Year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned you...

...here. I'm never sure where people stand on being referred to in discussions they're not aware of. Plus I always wondered what happened to that idea. Franamax (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coren/Archives/2011/December&oldid=1147978442"