User talk:Coren/Archives/2012/November

Copyright violation detection

Hi Coren, nice to see you around. I would really like to bring you into the discussions with A.G.West and Madman about copyright violation detection. Would you be available to chat sometime? Please email me at your convenience at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to set aside some time for you this week. — Coren ^(talk) 22:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

voting guide

Re your comment on Jimbo talk [1] -- will you be doing an ArbCom voting guide? Nobody Ent 22:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably. I had already considered it, and since you're not the first to ask I suppose there is some interest in reading my ramblings.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 22:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've obviously been reading your Jimbo talk ramblings ... am mostly curious to see how my list of asinine statements matches up with someone else's. Nobody Ent 22:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in reading it. Also, I think you hit the nail on the head on Jimbo's talk. --Rschen7754 07:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you do guides in previous years? I don't remember. NW (Talk) 00:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It would hardly have been appropriate when I was running for a seat.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

{{you've got mail}} Rschen7754 00:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I got it, but it will take some consideration before I can find a way forward. — Coren ^(talk) 00:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Network Security Toolkit Copyright Issue

I believe the copyright issue raised by the CorenSearchBot is not correct on the Network Security Page:

I am the owner of the site: http://www.networksecuritytoolkit.org and see not copyright violation. Please remove the automatic copyright issue...

---Ron Henderson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwhalb (talk • contribs) 23:17, 9 November 2012 (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) 23:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar archived AutomaticStrikeout 15:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. — Coren ^(talk) 21:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Arb

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. — Coren ^(talk) 21:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Fjozk

Good call. You beat me to it. Toddst1 (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I generally go above and beyond to give editors an opportunity to defend themselves and/or appeal a decision, and I've never been one for escalating at a little venting on one's talk page – but there's a point where it stops being defensible as good faith. I think that point had been reached a while back. — Coren ^(talk) 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

IB violation

Sorry to bother you; however, I am concerned that a certain editor with whom I share an IB now seems to be following me to my new project Jimi Hendrix, which I started on 1 November. If I understand the IB correctly, I am not allowed to revert an editor with whom I have an IB. I want to improve the article and take it to FAC; however, said editor's edit has introduced the error of using British English dating in an article about an American subject. Can I fix this error, or do I need to leave any and all errors introduced by said editor? They are clearly following me around for the sake of harrasment (this was their very first edit ever to the article), and while I really and truly do not want to bother anyone with this drama, I don't know what I'm supposed to do here. Can you please give me some advice? Thanks and cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this myself, since Jimi Hendrix is on my watchlist. It seems Andreasegde is testing the limits of his interaction ban with his negative comment on the talkpage, and his edit with a hostile edit summary. I'd personally recommend a block on Andreasegde to prevent further vios, and if and when he appeals to have it lifted, make a determination as to whether that is warranted. Naturally it is your call, but I was frankly astonished when I read Andreas' hostile comment on an article Gabe is making a major effort on, and feel this is an actionable IB violation. Needless to say, Wikipedia is a huge project, and Andreas, who has countless other places to go and edit is clearly stalking and harrassing Gabe as a vindictive tactic, which the community has already firmly prohibited Andreas from doing. Thanks Coren. Jusdafax 23:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to look into this tomorrow morning. — Coren ^(talk) 05:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Fortunatly, I am watching for the election!

Coren, please check your facts before taking me on [2]. While I never learnt to spell or punctuate in any language (or even indent on Wikipedia - which seems a more heineous crim to some), I more than compensate by an exrememly long and accurate memory and high regard for facts. Giano (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment

• [3]

Without commenting on the discussion itself, the edit summary is one I've so often thought when trying to discuss on Wikipedia. We should have a guideline or some such which reflects this (And having said that, I have that feeling that we'll discover a half dozen lol). - jc37 20:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing medium

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the flattery, but I'm afraid that as I've grown older my belly has gotten increasingly stubborn. I haven't fit in a medium in some time.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 19:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Categorizing people as pedophiles -- issue with another article

Hey, Coren. Per this discussion at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, where we both commented, do you mind weighing in at the Talk:Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal#The word "paedophile" discussion? I'm not interested in getting too involved with that issue, but I did leave a comment there about it. It's clear that Category:Pedophilia is problematic in these cases; by that, I mean that it's clear that it usually should not be used to apply to people (especially living people, per our WP:BLP policy). If it's going to continue to apply to people, it should only be used for those who have been officially diagnosed as having pedophilia, which would mean very few people would be listed in this category, and for people who have heavily studied pedophilia (such as Michael C. Seto, who is already listed as part of the category). But the thing about that is that the category would require constant watching to ensure such inappropriate uses of it are not allowed; either that, or it would need to be full-protected so that the talk page is primarily used to discuss what and who should be added to it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

your improper deletion of an article

List of pedophiles should not have been deleted. It should've been renamed to People convicted of child sexual abuse. Those on the list are already in that category. Please undo your out of process deletion, and send it to AFD properly if you decide its warranted. Dream Focus 00:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#List_of_pedophiles - jc37 00:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, just as many people would be against this if given the proper time to notice and comment. I have to mention this on the talk page of the administrator before starting a deletion review. We'll deal with the issue there. Dream Focus 00:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought, but there is a difference between notifying a closer, and attempting to discuss a close with them. I merely was pointing you to a related discussion. But I might suggest you might want to wait for Coren's response before going to DRV. - jc37 00:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing. It says in the instructions to attempt to discuss it with the closing administrator before starting a deletion review. Dream Focus 00:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I most certainly will not. That deletion was out of process because it was necessary for it to be out of process – the delay of an AfD was entirely untenable. Such a list is impossible to make even vaguely-compliant with BLP (regardless of its name), and its existence in search results is harmful and destructive. Feel free to send this to deletion review, but I've no doubt that the result will remain the same. — Coren ^(talk) 00:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of pedophiles

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of pedophiles. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dream Focus 00:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Duty calls

Wondering if you thought about answering the call. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The context! She is meeessing! — Coren ^(talk) 23:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If he is talking about the Arbcom elections, then I'll second the call : ) - jc37 23:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Gah! It's still not clear to me what I did wrong to deserve it, but didn't a three years stint means I served my sentence already? — Coren ^(talk) 23:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You know, I've asked several past arbcom members, and this seems to be the general consensus... It's a shame that with all the work done discussing reforming the tone at RfA, we don't work on discussing the tone of being on Arbcom : ) - jc37 23:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong; it's not so bad that I'd refuse if I was asked to sit on the committee. But it was no walk in the park either, and it's not a bad idea to let new blood in either. And, truth be told, I'm sorta enjoying the freedom that comes with not being an arbitrator.

On the other hand, I admit I'm worried by the very low number of candidates at this time. They are surprisingly good candidates on average (that's a good thing), but having too few of them means that voters don't get much of a meaningful choice either. — Coren ^(talk) 23:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I dunno if you read other talk page discussions before saying that, but if you have, and that was a subtle nudge... I'm looking over the questions : p - jc37 23:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you were willing, your run would serve a couple of purposes. It would provide the community with a known quantity, someone who is familiar with the process and can make a difference from day one without a lot of "getting up to speed". It would also be an option for anyone wanting change, as you aren't a current Arb, yet you know the system enough to be effective. And perhaps there is something to be said about an on/off Arb session, experience without the entrenchment and burnout. Familiarity with both Arb and not being in Arb anymore. Having some Arbs serving every other term only might actually be a plus, imho, to prevent burnout. I think your odds would be reasonably good. I certainly would support you, but even if you didn't make the cut, the community deserves choices from viable candidates. And before you ask, I've been asked by a great number of people but I'm not ready nor a viable candidate yet. I know my limitations and it isn't my time. I certainly don't blame you if you chose to not, and you shouldn't feel obligated in any way. If you are looking for a way to make a difference here, I think it would be excellent timing. Maybe the Arbs that don't run this year can be talked into running again in a year or two, and maybe some rotation will be a good thing, allowing some Arbs to just "be one of us" as often as they serve, if they choose. It is a tough job, after all. All I'm asking is that you consider it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis and I third this excellent motion! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It was incredibly well said. You're gonna be competing with Mr. Stradivarius for charming the wool off of sheep DB : ) - jc37 23:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd support you! --Rschen7754 23:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That's... compelling. I'll consider it, especially if the number of candidate remains too low for comfort as the deadline approaches. Thanks for your support, by the way, it does make it feel better about even considering returning to a job where criticism of everything one does is the norm.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 01:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• It takes a special kind of person to work effectively in any situation where criticism is the norm. Even more so to return after a break. Most people simply can't function for long in that environment, which is why so few serious people make a run, and why so many wash out mid-term, and why it is so important we have choices. I (we) appreciate your sincere consideration. That is all anyone can ask. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

  It's interesting to note the increasing number of candidates arriving after I threw my hat in the ring. Most are probably coincidental (many people wait until late in the period to hop in), but I can't help but wonder if any of them did so by thinking something along the lines of "Oh, god, we can't let him get a seat by default!"  :-) That said, the average quality of candidates remain very high this year, and I'm pleased to see the voters will get some meaningful choice. — Coren ^(talk) 15:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

  Excellent. Expect my support. Regardless of outcome, I know the community respects everything you do and appreciates your willingness to serve. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar archivated. Thanks, Coren, for taking care of that issue with a minimum of fuss. Keep up your fine work. Herostratus (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I try. Honestly, though, finding that thing on Wikipedia was a serious facepalm moment and I've little doubt that many other admins who would have stumbled upon it would have reacted much the same way I did. — Coren ^(talk) 15:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

{{ygm}} -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Saw it. — Coren ^(talk) 15:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

oops

Fixed the error - and note you have my Strong Support in the election. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I know I'm not a stand-out candidate, but it's always pleasant that have some confirmation that one is not doing too crappy a job once every so often.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 15:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Your hard work over at WP:ANI

Just letting you know: thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtcy3 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom

Just thought you'd like to know I've changed my stance to "Neutral" and have modified my comment - User:Boing! said Zebedee/ACE2012. I could easily support you in future. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the... er... not support?  :-) Seriously, though, I do understand the reticence, and it was the one of the reasons why I had not originally considered running (that is, the fact that this would be seen as a serious handicap not your own personal hesitation). It's not without merit, though obviously I sincerely believe it doesn't harm my capacity to be a competent arbitrator.

That said, the fact that you feel so confident about my integrity that you'd review your position is both humbling and very much appreciated. Thank you. — Coren ^(talk) 17:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Help with situation

I am quite new and I didn't know exactly where to go with [[4]]. Let's just say we have a tough editor, very technical, knowledgable, but aggressive and very hard to collaborate with. He has reverted different versions of this added point despite three or four editors disputing it and adding it back in. Each time reasons about grammar and sentence structure are used for an edit history but no content discussion and no talkpage discussion has ensued. Editwarring may have already occurred, possibly by myself. When attempts at collaboration on other issues has been attempted he cleans his talkpage or very seldom responds to article talk pages. Please direct me to some advice or help on this. It is hard to discuss content with editors that appear to avoid by double speak. The guy is a valuable tech resource and I don't want to irritate future collaboration. Thanks. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're already doing the right thing: engaging on the talk page. It's a bit exasperating sometimes, but I don't see either of you doing anything wrong except being a little bit frustrated. Take a step back and reread the discussion to make sure you really understand what they are saying and I'm sure you'll come to an arrangement. — Coren ^(talk) 14:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Attempts by several ,on his, and article talk pages have resulted in being ignored *sigh*. I suspect a non-native English editor although grammar is very goods. Yeah frustrated. I think I walked into a prior personality war. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That, sadly, sometimes happens. Perhaps a good step forward would be to explain the change you are trying to make on the talk page rather than directly make it to the article. If the other editors understand what you are trying to add, they might help with wording that satisfies everyone. — Coren ^(talk) 14:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I have put some information on the article talk page concerning the editor in question. He is a native Canadian english speaker. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Coren your Technical skills in respect to CheckUser tool have been greatly beneficial to the community specially at SPI. Keep up the great work! Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)