User talk:Coren/Archives/2009/December

And because I'm tired of waiting for the perfect edit............
Thanks for the note. Tim Song (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bot finds mirror: Water Cure (torture) - Wikipedia article mirrored on another site
Fyi, regarding the auotomated copyright violation tag by CorenSearchBot. The bot found a Wikipedia mirror site, that led straight back to the Wikipedia article I was working on. This was noted by KuyaBriBri Talk, who removed the tag. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow
 * That was an overly complicated execution of a cut & paste move. History has now been merged. MLauba (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

CSB reports, another miss
Just giving you more data :) Water Cure (torture), tagged on December 1st at 22:10 UTC. :)

Do you want to make a subpage where we can list what we find so that I stop clogging up your talk page? :) I'd like to have a venue to discuss CSB II (for patrolled revisions) features as well, BTW. MLauba (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That'd just make it more likely that I'd miss it. :-)  Here is fine.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement from ArbCom regarding the recent massive use of RevisionDelete
I can't find the statement. Am I missing it? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are probably aware that synchronizing a statement between people that live and work on different continents is made lengthier because of the non-overlapping workdays. I expect the American west coast to join us soon which, combined with the end of the western European workday, should allow us to finish up.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thank you for the update. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday A Tribute to The Beatles/ Lengends of Yesterday
Weve received notification referencing Legends of Yesterday's website. Yesterday A Tribute to The Beatles and Legends of Yesterday are one and the same company owned by Yesterday Productions. Yesterday Productions is providing information to set up the Yesterday A Tribute to The Beatles reference page. Thanks very much, LizzyB939 (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Barbara McKeown Producer Yesterday Productions

Yesterday A Tribute to The Beatles insertion
Yesterday A Tribute to The Beates is not infringing on the copyrights of Legends of Yesterday, they are one and the same company.

Don Bellezzo & Barbara McKeown

LizzyB939 (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Summer3212 - American Art Therapy Association|header=1|url=arttherapy.org}}

You have placed a message and indicated on both the Art Therapy page as well as a new page I was created for our Association which had previously been deleted by someone, that there is a copyright issue regarding the URLs for our association. Our Association is 40 years old. Our previous URL was arttherapy.org. However, we transitioned that website (which is no longer in existence) to our new URL : www.americanarttherapyassociation.org a number of months ago. If you need proof that I am representing the organization, please email me at bflorence@arttherapy.org. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I may not understand all of your protocol, but I do know there is no copyright issue here. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Summer3212 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Bot way too fast
Robert Lesser is under construction (heavy copy edit)...your bot was too fast, didn't give me a change to post tag. Henry Delforn (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tag Deleted
Hello, recently your bot flagged a article I created, I have verified the contents of the article with the link your bot provided and there is no similarity and no copyright violation is done, so the tag was deleted. You can check the content yourself if you want Section_19_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code. Thank you. --Wikisidd (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Christine Warren
Sorry about, that I was just quickly trying to quickly make the space and forgot to change the biography around after. I have, hopefully, fixed the problem concerning copywrite. --Meraculas (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Simutrans Experimental
Simutrans experimental is still under development. The bot was too fast, didn't give me a chance to rewrite the copyrighted content.

--Vilvoh (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Cape Vidal
Definately not from the site you mention, i was still busy editing this new article, wait till finished pls. Flagman (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Vote
Did you double-vote here or is there something amiss? - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 08:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I did. I meant to change my vote to make it conditional, and my brain obviously failed somewhere along the way.  :-)  Fix't.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the continuing disruption
This is uninformative and unhelpful especially being associated with a proposed 1 year ban. I would request citation of specific and egregious continuing on-Wiki disruption on my part which merits such ostracizing. Thank you.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 04:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Bombay Dub Orchestra page copyright
The page for Bombay Dub Orchestra's album 3 Cities is taken from the myspace page which is a duplicate of the official BDO website. The copyright is owned by myself. Many thanks - BDO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atm2009 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Inciclopedia
Hi, it appears that your bot have tagged Inciclopedia incorrectly. Wikibin saves versions of Wikipedia articles. It was a old version of my article (it was deleted many time ago). You can verify on the Deletionpedia. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  18:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ACE vote
I hope you do get elected. The dignified, eloquent way with which you handle(d) yourself when questioning the reasoning behind my vote impressed me and I think I'll be looking forward to more ArbCom time for you. Just try, if you get re-elected, to be a little more proactive. I admit, I'm not always (usually) not right. ;) Best,  ceran  thor 01:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, quite allright. The balance between being proactive and overreaching is hair thin and watched zealously by a vocal segment of the community.  I suppose that wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that nobody actually agrees where that line is.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

NASA Headquarters
The copy from this page (http://www.education.com/partner/articles/nasa/) was actually taken from an internal NASA HQ server. So the copy was originally NASA's and was not licensed properly by education.com. Nasa-verve (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Cameron
Well, I did severely edit the article, but I can do so again. Fergananim (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

piano trio by Shostakowich
Sorry, I was editing Piano Trio No. 1 (Shostakovich) and have no idea how "Piano Trio No. 1 Shostakovich" was started, no intention. The now redirect can be deleted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

new post for Heintzman House
HI -I'm very new to this forum so I don't exactly know what I'm doing here - - I just added en entry for Heintzman House which is an historic facility within Markham/York Region - your 'bot' has noted that i have 'copied' info from the York Region Tourism page as noted inthe message you sent me. Please be advised that York Region Touriam "copied" (with our permission) the info from our web site - there fore We hold the copyright info -- not them. Thanks(??) 00:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Christine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heintzman House (talk • contribs)

I have posted information from my web site called "myghanaradio"Wkploanyi (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC) and according to your editor, it raises a copy right issue. I own the contents and therefore do not want it to be deleted
 * 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. &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

European Agricultural Guarantee Fund
Can someone have a closer look to this? do not know how to deal with this. Thnks.--Ida Shaw (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Swiss Association for Standardization
As the user Beat Looser who has written the text is employed at www.snv.ch, we do not consider this a coypright infringement. We own the copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beat Looser (talk • contribs) 15:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As the user Beat Looser who has written the text is employed at www.snv.ch, we do not consider this a coypright infringement. We own the copyright.Beat Looser (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Indeed, it would not be. But we do need to verify that. I have left directions at your user talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

About BS.Player
I understand your concern about its possible direct copy of http://wikibin.org/articles/bs.player.html with no attribution, since the sentences in the pages are almost the same (except the "see also", "references", "external links" sections and the statements I added), however, this may be because wikibin.org copied Wikipedia article without any attribution. Please conduct further research to verify it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

107 Squadron
I never heard/read the page you mention. Upon checking it appears to use the same source/sources as I do, especially for the squadron crest. You might find the page you think I am copying guilty of the same you are accusing me off!Dirk P Broer (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot
Your bot just put some bizarre copyright accusation on my talk page. Dr. Loosmark 16:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC) That other page has this text: The last bike Nixon raced was a mid-1970s Kawasaki KR750, a two-stroke Formula 750 beast with a wild, three-cylinder 750cc engine.. Other than Kawasaki KR750 there is nothing similar. I suggest you rewrite the bot a bit, I don't want to be falsely accused again next time I made a stub. Dr. Loosmark 17:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My stub has the following text: The Kawasaki KR750 was a racing motorcycle built by Kawasaki in 1975 and 1976.

Bug report
Bug report:. --Snek01 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Charles O'Kelly
Edited article to conform with copyright. Fergananim (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ecoart page similarities
Bot found similarities between the ecoart definition page and information found on external sites relating to ecoart- this is because the authors of the definition include the authors of these sites, and the consensus from the group responsible for the posting was to incorporate large elements of each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantroywells (talk • contribs) 02:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

False positive with CSBot
Hello, CSBot recently marked the page Agriculture in South Africa as a copyright violation, even though it contained the Template:Loc template, which marks material from the U.S. Library of Congress country studies program. Might want to look at that. Thanks for your bot! Cerebellum (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete template
The Template:Csb-pageincludes doesn't include the useful instructions "If you hold the copyright to this text..." that does appear in Csb-pageincluded. This misleads owners trying to include their content. It should also be included in that template. Diego (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably. I see pageincluded has been tweaked more than pageincludes (probably because it's more frequent), and they no longer sync up very well; you're welcome to tweak it too.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Freedom Tour
Hi. I think your bot thinks I copied The Freedom Tour article from www.freeourpeople.ca Since it has nothing to do with that site or it's contents I removed the note. RayOfLight (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions re EEML case
The EEML participants so far have made absolutely zero indication they would change their behavior. What protection can be offered in the future should they go back to battling, or if they battle outside the EE space against their opponents? How can we be assured that the users getting banned won't use (meat|sock)puppets to evade their ban (there was much talk of this in the archives)?  Triplestop  x3  20:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, due to our open nature it's not really possible to prevent socks, but having an existing sanction makes it easier to track down and remove them. I don't suppose any of sanctioned users would be able to get away with their current behavior without them being noticed swiftly and send to SPI.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but can we keep EEML commentary on the proceedings pages while the case is still open? Thank you.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 00:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That response applied to the situation in general, and was not directed at the participants of any specific case. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment was regarding Triplestop's transparent lobbying for restrictions/punishment at an ArbCom's talk page off-case. I have no issue with your responding to inquiries regardless of their source.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 23:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

GNU 3DLDF
Hello,

I've tried to rename an article from "3DLDF" to "GNU 3DLDF", which is the official name of the software that is the subject of the article. I am the author and maintainer of GNU 3DLDF and I've started working on expanding the stub article about it. I see that I haven't followed the procedure correctly and will go back and try to correct my mistakes as soon as possible. I can't do so immediately, because I have to start work today.

Thank you and I apologize for any convenience.

Ldfgttngn (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the previous state of the 3DLDF page and made the GNU 3DLDF redirect to the former. When I've read up on how to split pages correctly, I'll change them so it works the other way.

I hope this is all right. Ldfgttngn (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright
I like to informe you that I copied from my own webpage and it is my biography. alipianolesson.com is my homepage —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhajavi (talk • contribs) 18:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I hold the copyright to the material in the article
I am the author of A Photographic Guide to the Birds of Wintergreen, and the webpage that your automated system found was on my publisher's website and written by me, and I have permission to post this excerpt on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbmanbirds (talk • contribs) 01:29, 16 December 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.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Abba Sayyadi Ruma
Your bot flagged this article very soon after my first save. I am not sure if it was right or wrong. What it caught was a list of educational qualifications from a self-published bio: ''He gained a BA in History from the University of Sokoto, a Masters in International Affairs and Diplomacy from Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, and a Ph.D in International Relations from the University of Abuja. He also holds a Senior Executive Fellowship Certificate from the John. F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University in the United States.'' This is close, not exact, to the self-published bio. The bot did a good job spotting it. I can't imagine there is any copyvio in this case, but still, it is close to the original...

If you check the article you will see I have added a fair amount of content from other sources, and will probably add more if I don't get side-tracked. I do my best to paraphrase, but the list of words the bot caught is hard to paraphrase. Maybe the bot reacted a bit too fast. Or maybe not. Don't know. Not a problem, but it sort of bugged me when I saw the notice when I was just starting the article.... Aymatth2 (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Originator of definition on www.wikipedia.org
CorenSearchBot has marked my definitions as copyrighted conflicts on wikipedia as they are already listed in www.wikimheda.org. I am the originator all these three definitions on both wikimheda.org and have now on wikipedia. I work for: GBI Data & Sorting Systems, my name is Peggy Forster. The three headings are: Tilt Tray Sorter, Cross Belt Sorter, and Carrier Sorter. As I wrote both definitions, this is not a copyright issue. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PegFor (talk • contribs) 21:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Election talk page
Just FYI, I moved both of our comments in the "A Side Issue" thread that I started, into a new main section, "After the election." I did not want the issue that I raised to get "lost" amidst the "are-we-there-yet" discussion in the section it was in. But I also didn't want you to think someone removed your comment -- it is just moved to the bottom of the page. Neutron (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please unblock Giano
Seriously, do it now. If you think action is needed, get consensus for it. This just looks like Arbs bullying Giano into silence (again) because they have an issue with the accusations he is making. If he's wrong, then the best approach is to counter what he's saying, not force his silence. WJBscribe (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I also dispute that this excessive block is fair or required to protect the wikipedia at all. Please reconsider. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you can make it stick any more than Giano can prove his accusations. Best to just let it be unless you're prepared to stake your reputation on it. Mackensen (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Fourthed - He was being mildly confrontational and provocative, and assuming bad faith, but not broaching the level of disruption or abusive/uncivil comments in that thread on the audit committee page.
 * We see five worse things pop up daily on ANI. This wasn't proportionate.
 * Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The point isn't that single incident, but a pattern of offensive and disruptive behavior that has lasted for at least two years. This is moot, anyways, given that I was reverted by another administrator who did not even have the courtesy of discussing the matter with me first.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO, only vandalisers should be indef-blocked. To my knowledge, Giano ain't a vandaliser. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, policy supports blocking for every kind of disruption; not just vandalism. A good argument can be made that Giano's net contribution to the project has been considerably more destructive than most vandals ever have been.  He's contributed a great deal of good contents, especially in the oft-neglected field of architecture, but because of this contribution he has been left to attack and drive away a large number of other editors who, collectively, were also just as valuable as he was.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I reckon ya got me there. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Coren's got you there. Good content is not a pass to insult users and make personal attacks and certainly not for a long period of time. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I leave it in your (the administrators) hands. Cheers. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Coren, I don't disagree that a long term pattern of disruption is blockable, even indef-blockable. And Giano certainly has had some form of long term pattern of disruption.  But I think that, absent a particularly oustanding example incident as the percipitating excuse, we largely overstep what the community supports if we just impose these.  I think a RFC to the extent that Giano is tending to attack people or assume bad faith or act disruptively in toto in how he engages on ANI and other related forums would be productive, and might be sufficient to support topic bans or other restrictions.  If he had gone off the rails truly excessively and without provocation here, that would be sufficient.  But neither of those is the case.  Exhausting an admins patience is not the same as exhausting community patience.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Perhaps; there is some wisdom in what you say and I'd be tempted to agree if history has not shown repeatedly that Giano inspires such fear of drama that any action towards attempting to address the matter is rapidly overturned regardless of the context and that community discussion is usually derailed out of fear of "censoring dissent" &mdash; a fear Giano is quite willing to exploit even if it means inventing conspiracies to dissent against. I'm in the process of filing a request for (the rest of) ArbCom to settle this. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not afraid of Giano. I certainly am not supporting him here because he was behaving well.  But I do feel that he wasn't behaving that badly by normal standards.  Had that sequence of comments been another, random editor, they would not have been blockable.  Even in context with his history, this was relatively mundane.
 * I have stated in the past that, with sufficient offense in evidence, I'd be willing to block anyone including Jimbo or an Arbcom member. That certainly applies to Giano.  This simply IMHO didn't amount to nearly sufficient justification.
 * I agree on the unblock discussion point you made elsewhere, but I think the ultimate result was appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also - see the proposed Ottava Rima decision, which you are obviously familiar with. He was not simply blocked; the process played out as it is supposed to.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the parallel is that clear; I am no longer convinced that Giano is in good faith but misguided, something which seemed clear with Ottava. &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not clear to me. I am open to being convinced, but I don't see it myself at this time.  If you are right and can convince me and others, that would change the situation, yes.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)The notion that Giano "drives away" editors needs to be challenged some time, Coren. Ottava Rima, whose vendetta against me you didn't indeed block for, but called a "personality conflict" when he asked you about it, very likely does drive away editors, as the ArbCom now seems to have realized. He's several times made me feel like walking away, certainly; compare my diffs on the "Ottava Rima Restrictions" evidence page; did you for example click on this one, which Ottava gave you, before you said "personality conflict"? But Giano? What working editors has he driven away? In "large numbers", yet? It's a myth. Bishonen | talk 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Bish, the time for providing evidence is during the case; there is little point in rehashing this here redundantly. I do find it interesting how you can notice how Ottava has driven good editors away in frustration &mdash; which has had the unfortunate consequence that we needed to exclude him; but somehow think that Giano's behavior has no such effect.  Perhaps the fact that you are amongst his friends is a factor, given that you would find yourself on the "right" side of his wrath and would not feel it yourself?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And perhaps you being an arbitrator makes you the less used to expressions of wrath? Anyway, you had no comment when I mentioned that dialogue during the case.(, scroll down) — and now it's gone all redundant. I guess you have no regrets . I won't mention it again. Bishonen | talk 02:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC).

(undent) Well, the problem with this is that most people believe they are speaking the TruthTM, even if they are deluding themselves. When someone speaks of vast conspiracies against them, of of editors banding to oppress them, it's not really possible to determine how sincere they are in their beliefs &mdash; nor is it useful for the end result remains that they are unable to work in a collaborative environment. &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From Giano's point of view there's a secret mailing list where people are discussing how to get rid of him or what to do with him. That list, arbcom-l, is a big part of the problem.  You folks operate in an echo chamber and don't always have a good feel for community sentiments.  If you think Giano, or any well known editor, needs to be sanctioned, you have to make a case to the community, or else you'll simply be overturned.  ArbCom can help in edge cases where the community is split.  With Giano, it's not really a split.  He enjoys 60/40 support.  If you try to sanction him, you'll do more damage to yourself than to him. I'm not saying things should or should not be this way.   These are the realities.   Jehochman Talk 03:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * [...enjoys 60/40 support...] Just out of curiousity, are there any empirical data for this?  —Amelioration  06:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Coren, how do we get you recalled? An Arbcom has no business holding consensus in disdain. Someone who makes blocks based on their personal opinions and rejects the views of other editors is disruptive and damaging to the project. Also, this personal attack you made: "only based on hallucinations of vast conspiracies and widespread corruption that exist only in your mind, you're stepping over a line that should not be crossed by anyone" is unacceptable. I read Giano's page weeks ago when you appeared there as a threatening bully telling him what to do and that he shouldn't be allowed to question secret processes. You told him he had to be patient. And yet the report you promised hasn't been released.

I'm sorry if Rlevse is embarassed by her involvement in an improper oversighting, but you have no business blocking against consensus to punish a user you don't like. Please fix your mess, apologize and avoid causing inappropriate disruptions of this kind in the future. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the above comment: In any case, I suspect the reasonable deliberations of the Committee may be well-suited to working out a practical solution to the long-term behavioral issues in this case.  —Amelioration  06:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) [...how do we get you recalled...] Even if there were a recall mechanism, I seriously doubt anyone believes there would really be community support to recall the Arbitrator in question. Thus, mentions of recall are inflammatory and demagogic.
 * 2) [...hallucinations...] I agree that this may not have been the most diplomatic word choice - but altogether it's a rather minor point.
 * 3) [...Rlevse...her...] A rather amusing mistake given the issue that set this situation off...
 * So indefinitely blocking good faith contributors against consensus is okay, but inquiring how we get rid of abusive arbcom's is "inflammatory and demagogic"? I disagree. Your statement is both absurd and hypocritical.
 * May not have been diplomatic word choice? Minor? Telling people they are hallucinating and dismissing their complaints and concerns in that fashion is totally unacceptable. From an arbcom it's definitely not minor.
 * Arbs and admins like Coren who run roughshod over members of the community they disagree with and don't like cause an enormous amount of damage and disruption. No one should be above consensus or allowed to disrespect fellow contributors in good standing the way he has. Making apologias for his unacceptable behavior isn't helpful.
 * And now I see Coren is pursuing an Arbcom case, despite his inappropriate and involved block being disputed almost unanimously. This kind of wikipolitics and vendetta pursuit is totally improper and no sitting Arb should be engaging in that kind of nonsense. What an utter waste of time. Step down already and be done with it.ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I simply do not understand what business you have in holding the flags, since you seem incapable in using them appropriately in regard to editors you disagree with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you'd be right if you were anywhere near the truth in this case. I have no bone to pick with Giano, I've never been in any dispute with him outside my futile attempts at enforcing a minimal level of civilized behavior, and the invectives and untruth he directs at me specifically do not cause any sort of resentment because they are meaningless to me.  What I do see is someone who causes, repeatedly and over a very long period of time, a great deal of disruption.  Whether he actually believes his grandstanding as the defender against corruption and conspiracies has lost relevance years ago; the fact remains that he finds himself at the center of heated controversies over and over again, with tens and dozens of different editors involved every time.  Either he truly is a maligned victim of multiple conspiracies, or he is the problem.  Either way, something needs to be done. The only reason he was not banned long ago is that there remains a small but vocal minority of editors (including admins) who are willing to defend his actions repeatedly regardless of what they are and what the consequences are.  Some out of a desire to support his campaign against authority in all its form regardless of merit, some because they share his delusions about vast corrupt political schemings, some are simple sycophants attempting to curry his favor, and some simply because they are uninformed but made the mistake of taking his wilder accusations at face value (because they would be damning if they weren't completely fabricated).  There too, the motives have long lost any relevance; the problem is the effect: the community is no longer capable of dealing with him.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an exceedingly unfair characterization of those opposing his blocking, Coren. Look at the people who have opposed it here. Are you ready to say all these people are either joining in his campaign against authority, delusional about vast conspiracies or sycophants? I have some news for you: I oppose his being blocked, and I'm none of those three, and I don't appreciate the implication that I am. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, first off, you'll note the fourth alternative which is none of the first three (obviously). Secondly, I did not say that this was an exhaustive list; I'm no more able to read people's minds than you are, and I make no pretension of classifying you in any category, let alone a specific one.  As I've said, the motives are by now completely immaterial anyways: the net effect is that Giano now has complete immunity against any attempt to correct his misbehavior and that needs to be fixed.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Coren, I haven't been properly blocked in nearly 5 years.  Does that mean I'm immune to blocking too?  Yes, Giano frequently pisses off people in positions of power, but "pissed me off" isn't a valid block reason.  Jehochman Talk 14:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are perfectly correct. Which is why I didn't even consider blocking him for this reason.  I blocked him as a consequence of his continuing disruption, incivility and personal attacks after I had warned him that, while he was welcome to seek redress about what he perceived to be mishandling of the original incident, he was do to so while showing minimal civility.  That he mischaracterized that warning as "threatening to block him for complaining", which is obviously false when it is actually read, is immaterial.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had people do much worse to me, and they weren't blocked. The problem is that our enforcement of civility and NPA has historically been quite selective.  If you're unpopular or unpowerful and criticizing somebody popular or powerful, you are likely to be blocked.  The other way around, not so much.  We ought to come up with objective standards and stick to them.  This is the problem that deserves our attention much more than the single instance of Giano's remarks. Jehochman Talk 15:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Oh, I agree with that! I suppose it's no surprise that worry about so-called "vested contributors" is a recurring theme; and it's no secret that vast allowances are made for editors who behave atrociously in some areas if they contribute valuably to others. I believe this is fundamentally unfair, and needs to be fixed; I'm hoping this case might help give a foundation for this &mdash; not because Giano needs or deserves to be made an example of any more than dozens of other editors &mdash; but because he is a salient, and particularly divisive, instance of the general problem. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So should I then change it to, "people with whom you feel are permitted too much allowance to air their grievances..."? Giano does not cause all disruption related to him, but is often the fulcrum for it. This previous matter is a case in point; someone totally misunderstands a reference made by Giano and, because it is Giano, there is a full blown hunt for an oversighter who will remove (is it the case that local oversighters refused to act, understanding the context?) the "offending remarks", and the subsequent calls for sanction for it and outraged responses by Giano to these calls. Where is Giano at fault? On what basis should Giano be blocked because some people run around with their arses in their hand because Giano has said something which might, with a little effort, be construed as an attempt to disclose the first name of someone who may or may not be familiar with some place in a rather large continent? Or the recent matter of the Mattisse ArbCom motion, where that editor referenced Giano specifically in one of their justifications - and to what purpose? Where is Giano at fault? I shall make it easy for you - Giano is at fault for not being sanguine about being the target for those whose faculties do not permit them to exercise the restraint, civility, and respect that they demand should be shown by Giano. That is no basis on which editors should have their editing privileges removed. If people do not like the manner in which Giano responds to stupidity, whether by action or comment, then it beholds them to not be so stupid when dealing with him - or failing that remove themselves from commenting or acting in regard to Giano. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Giano is at fault for calling people liars and worse, fabricating insulting "facts" about people, then insulting them over those imagined flaws, creating controversy where none exist then demanding reparation over events that never occurred with insults and invective. For instance, your description of the precipitating events are completely false.  There was no "full blown hunt" for anything; nothing was suppressed because it was Giano, and the "outraged" response by Giano were completely out of proportion to his imagine slight &mdash; especially since it was already clear at that time that the suppressions were erroneous and borne of a misunderstanding &mdash; and directed at people who had absolutely no part in the matter to boot.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Acting upon the bad faith and erroneous supposition that Giano would out another editor is only a misunderstanding, yet Giano terming another editor a liar (which I agree is grounds for a warning and possibly a sanction) for misrepresenting Giano, and his motives, in a public venue is grounds for blocking Giano? You blocked Giano precisely because of his personal attacks upon individuals, yet those who claimed Giano to be the type of editor (and thus person) who would publicise the identity of an editor against their wishes - and an allegation of such turpitude is certainly a personal attack - are to be noted only as having a misunderstanding (and not even counseled to perhaps to request the input of other editors)? Do you not see the inbalance between what is proposed to be required of Giano, and yet felt unworthy of prolonged let alone adverse comment of those who act toward Giano as he is noted to have done? Giano calls someone a liar (and worse, whatever that might be) for publicising mistruths or "misunderstandings" about him, and is blocked for it, yet someone denotes him an outing vandal and receives no official censure or even acknowledgement that it was bad faith assumption? This is reasonable, because...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because, in one case, it was a (not sufficiently) quickly reverted error that many people took pains to explain as such; and in the other is it habitual, and has regularly been warned against. Giano calling other editors liars, deceitful, etc. is frequent; and I've yet to see him hint that he may have done so in error even a single time, let alone state it.  He's been repeatedly warned away (and sanctioned) for such personal attacks in the past and is either unable or unwilling to desist.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it is obvious that we are no nearer to encompassing each others viewpoint in regard to this (and we may be returning to it at another venue) I think I shall withdraw from this page - leaving me only to apologise for both the tone and presumption of my opening comments. I do not think you should be denied access to the flags generally, but perhaps I might suggest that you use them only to enact clear community consensus in some particularly contentious areas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the problem lies not with the Editor's initial concern, but over his continued refusal to drop the matter. The suppressed edits have been restored.  What further is to be gained by advancing conspiracy theories?  —Amelioration  21:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be most productive to drop the case, and instead go to WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, and WP:CIVIL and set up clear boundaries to help normalize enforcement. Once that is done, if Giano or anybody else crosses those boundaries, it will be much easier to block them, and make it stick.  A one off instance of the "wrong result" is inconsequential compared to getting the general pattern right. Jehochman Talk 15:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was easy enough to modify policy. I've offered up a motion on that basis. Jehochman Talk 20:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way we could give disruptive but valuable editors their own private sandpit to work in, while banning them from their extremely destructive politicking and attacks? This shouldn't be difficult to do. A lot of like-minded people might all want to go off and edit the B-Wikipedia, and both wikis would share the same licence so no good work would be lost. Okay, we might want to call it the "A-Wikipedia", so as to preserve these drama queens' vanity.

I have a theory that Wikipedia's tradition of strong collaborative editing is incompatible with the production of "Featured articles" and the like--this isn't entirely unrelated to the ideas outlined in Eric S. Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar. It's obvious that Wikipedia's greatest strengths are not represented by the featured articles that seem to be so popular with the most disruptive of our content contributors. Articles that stres appearance and style over verifiable content miss, it seems to me, the essential nature of Wikipedia. Particularly strong writers might find a more suitable home at Citizendium.

I've waited for something to be done about this ongoing disruption for about three years, and in that time I've seen a previously unknown cynicism creep into the heart of Wikipedia. But we know from childhood what to do about bullies: we confront them and take away their powers. This is what we should do to those who would hold Wikipedia hostage. --TS 23:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, and we have done, in the sense that we've confronted you and made you give up your admin tools, Tony. A propos of bullying, do you recollect your role in IRC? I have noted here—courteously, I hope—that that case was primarily about you and me, not about Giano as Coren apparently thought. (Giano and Bunchofgrapes tried to defend me, that's all.) Perhaps you care to comment? Bishonen | talk 23:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC).


 * The problem is that this risks creating a two-tier system, and that goes counter to some of our most important principles. The danger of the appeal of trying to just shove anyone who may have problems to Wikipedia-2nd class rather than guide them to become good contributors would be deadly to both.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To Jehochman's now quite far above, the notion of "powerful" individuals runs contrary to the notion of a community built on egalitarianism and collegiality. No? Anyone who is "powerful" is so because others allow them to be so.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 04:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
Assuming the appointments turn out as expected, I look forward to working with you. Steve Smith (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The current committee is Good People, and I'm sure you'll fit right in.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed! Congratulations on your strong support in the Committee elections. Keep up the good work!  —Amelioration  23:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Congrats to you too. Believe it or not, I actually voted for you! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did vote for candidates that I disagree with; what's important is "will they do a good job" more than "do I agree with all of their positions".  I appreciate your support for the former, even if you don't subscribe to the latter.  :-)
 * Please allow me to add my congratulations. I look forward to seeing your continued work with the Committee this upcoming year. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to you too! KnightLago (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! I voted for you on the basis of your thoughtful response to my questions—thoughtfulness and due consideration are often in short supply.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 03:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

CU suspicions of Moreschi sock puppeting
Coren, part of my case rested on that there was suspicious involvement between Moreschi and Folantin that made it appear that there was an inappropriate relationship. Normally, a CU is done when it appears to be what is meat puppetry or sock puppetry. Not having a match does not mean meat puppetry.

Since you supported a statement saying there was nothing suspicious about Moreschi's edits, I want you to publicly state for everyone who performed a CU check on Moreschi because of him having a suspicious editing pattern. We have talked about this before, and I am concerned by your recent quietness on it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you mistake "checking to be sure" with "there is something wrong". Your mistake lies in not being satisfied with the conclusion, so convinced were you of the correctness of your suspicions.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, are you admitting that you performed a check without the appropriate evidence according to the WMF standards? Because you are either admitting to violating standards or you are admitting that there was enough evidence to warrant a strong suspicion of Moreschi. Which of the two is it? They are mutually exclusive. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a false dichotomy. It is perfectly allowable to check an allegation from an editor if there would be disruption were that allegation correct.  This is, in fact, what usually happens at SPI.  I also should point out that, before you invoke the foundation standards, you should actually read up on them; there is no "appropriate evidence" criterion.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't speak down to me when I already do my research before confronting people - "In case of abusive use of the tool, the Steward or the editor with the CheckUser privilege will immediately have their access removed. This will in particular happen if checks are done routinely on editors without a serious motive to do so (links and proofs of bad behavior should be provided)." You have to have reasonable evidence or it isn't acceptable. That is what all CUs know. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "links and proofs of bad behavior" of abusive use of the tool. Your research was, I suspect, compromised by confirmation bias.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You took the last clause dealing with how to prove it and ignored the first clause about what is unacceptable: "This will in particular happen if checks are done routinely on editors without a serious motive to do so". Serious motive. Do you not know what that means? That is "appropriate evidence". There is no way around it Coren. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You claimed that there was nothing suspicious enough about Moreschi edits to warrant an accusation of meat puppetry. Obviously, if you had enough suspicion to check him for sock puppetry, then there IS suspicion enough to verify claiming that they were meat puppets. That is fact. Your statements in my ArbCom case are directly contradictory to your own actions. You thought that there was more than enough evidence that Moreschi could have had a sock. You have verified more than enough that there is evidence that a reasonable person would view Moreschi with suspicion. I had to make it public because you were unwilling to. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, are you going to say that you just randomly check user people without there being suspicious edits? I believe if that is the case, Giano might have a strong argument in his asking for your removal. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your conclusions are derived from your own convictions, and not from the facts at hand. An editor made a specific allegation to a member of the Committee; this allegation was verified and found to be unfounded.  Case closed.  There is no contradiction, except between what you imagine my motives to have been and what reality is.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfounded after checking. It wouldn't have been checked if it was unfounded before checking. Furthermore, the CU check does not disprove meat puppetry. It only disproves -sock- puppetry. The fact that you even bothered to do a CU check means that you thought there was sufficient need which verifies that there was enough evidence of inappropriate edits. Coren, it is obvious to just about anyone who looks here. But you keep digging yourself in a manner that is proving that Giano's claims about you are correct as you just claimed above that you could CU whenever you want without any evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you're just begging the question by using your own reasoning to assert that your reasoning is correct. It is not.  Further discussion of findings should be taken to the case pages; allegations that there was misuse of checkuser should be taken to the audit subcommitee.  Otherwise, this discussion is not productive and is over.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reread what I wrote. I originally stated your use of CU was correct because you originally used it because there was a lot of suspicion surrounding Moreschi based on evidence out there. You were the one that started making claims that backtracked on that. You could have easily admit that I was right to be suspicious but that the sock puppetry (but not meat puppetry) was proven to be unfounded. I accepted that when the results came back. That does not mean the meat puppetry does not exist, but, quite the opposite, there is more evidence that it was meat puppetry. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you think I'm an awful person. Fine. You blocked one long term sock puppet used to harass me. You have plenty of evidence about the rest. I had to put up with a lot of shit but you couldn't even give me the curteousy of accepting Rlevse's mentorship plan. Hell, I made it clear I was willing to not edit anything but article space - not talk, not Wiki, nothing. The mentorship even made it clear that I would not edit war or revert, and that I wouldnt have any ability to fight with people. The fact that you couldn't even give me that is startling. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Charnel ground
I ported information wholesale due to the license of the Rigpa Shedra wiki and would very much appreciate assistance in branding the information as so-ported through the license identified. B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 08:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML arbcom case
This 3RR report AN3 might be related to the current EEML arbcom case as there seems to be coordination between User:Martintg and User:Miacek and a mysterious newly registered third account User:Bobwikwiki. Pantherskin (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Somewhat related, I raised this question some ago, see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision/Archive_6. Although some progress has been made by introducing FoF for most editors, User:Poeticbent is missing so far despite a previous Fof and sanctions in the Eastern European disputes arbcom case, and despite at least three attempts to disrupt Wikipedia [20090718-0024], [20090820-0310], [20090731-0608]. Even worse, there does not seem to be an understanding that canvassing is disruptive as is evidenced by this comment and this post-EEML sockpuppet investigation and this subsequent comment . It was previously suggest to assign a mentor what seems to be an appropriate given that there is some confusion about appropriate editing and wikipedia policies. Pantherskin (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a bit late to add to the already painfully long EEML case; but I don't think that any of this is surprising. With luck, the remedies will alleviate this for some time to come.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Lyceum, Port Sunlight - suggested copyright violation
None of the text was taken from here and the image is taken from Geograph Social club. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML
I sincerely hope that you all keep in mind that the more lenient you are towards the EEML, the harsher you are to everyone having the misfortune of becoming their target. I have made that sad experience, it is not fun. Best Skäpperöd (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I expect you refer to my opposition to the indefinite ban? I simply believe that two years of sanctions (including a one year ban) is pretty much the maximal sanction the committee can legitimately impose for editoral misbehavior, as a matter of principle.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was simply irritated that on what I thought were the last minutes of this case several arbs started retracting their support votes. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a matter of retracting support more than concentrating on the remedies which do pass to make the majority clearer. It's not unusual, though it usually happens over the last week or so rather than the last hours in a flurry.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you for your response. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

donating my own article
```` Shiv R Jhawar 12/20/09

Hello,

I just tried to donate my own article given at the bottom of this page, but your bot has somehow mistakenly determined that it is NOT my article. Your bot displayed the following message:

“Molding Regional Unions for a Better Tomorrow This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Molding Regional Unions for a Better Tomorrow, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://blog.nobleworld.org/2009/01/19/regionalunions.aspx. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)”

Please help as I am your new member who signed up on your website today. I gave the following text above my article:

"A superb piece of political insight; perhaps the most sensible idea to have emerged from the subcontinent in nearly 5 decades," wrote Lakhinder Singh after reading the article "Molding Regional Unions for a Better Tomorrow" by Shiv R. Jhawar (posted at Noble World Foundation's blog at www.nobleworld.org).

Please feel free to edit my article. For reforming the UN, my article includes “Solution to the lack of democratic representation in the UN's Security Council.”

How can I successfully donate my article on your website? I look forward to receiving your assistance.

Have a peaceful day! Thanks - Shiv R. Jhawar Phone:

Molding Regional Unions for a Better Tomorrow

by Shiv R Jhawar

On November 4, 2008, the United States elected its first African-American president, a giant step toward true equality. Until it actually happened, few Americans seriously believed they would ever see a non-white President. The dream of Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968) became a reality. The seed for a more humanistic era was planted, inspiring 21st century humanity to overcome barriers of race, class, gender, religion, and nationality.

Throughout his campaign, President Barack Obama stressed the word "United." His message of unity can be an inspiration to those countries that were divided by the colonial "divide and rule" tactic that prevailed during 19th and early 20th century. This division along religious, ethnic, caste, or racial lines, led these countries - as well as different sects within these countries - to become bitter enemies. Sinhalese-Tamils hatred in Sri Lanka, Hindu-Muslim hatred in India and Pakistan, Jew-Arab hatred in Israel and Palestine, and Tutsis-Hutus hatred in Rwanda are some glaring examples. One grave effect of this "divide and rule” policy has been ongoing distrust and enmity between neighboring nations. When developing countries need support, they often look up to major world powers. Although there is nothing wrong in approaching major world powers, the tendency to ignore neighboring countries impedes regional security and economic progress. The European Union - a political miracle: Increasing coordination among neighboring countries can help usher in regional prosperity, harmony, and peace. This has been amply demonstrated by the European Union (EU), which covers most of the territories of ancient Rome. The EU, headquartered in Brussels, Belgium, was founded on treaties among sovereign countries and has six main organs: the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the European Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, and the European Central Bank (ECB), which manages the euro currency. The EU Parliament members are directly elected by the citizens of all member nations. The EU, a political miracle, has its own budget and tax system and is not dependent on national contributions as is the United Nations (UN). It is remarkable that the EU has eliminated the death penalty within its member nations. The euro currency is an astounding economic success. The majority of the EU nations gave up their own centuries-old currencies to adopt the euro as their single currency. It was the introduction of the euro currency that united EU countries economically. The euro has achieved reserve currency status because investors have confidence in its future stability.

Proposing an "Indus Union": The European Union has created a model for a successful economic future not only for Europe but also for the rest of the world. A call for the economic unification of neighboring nations within the Indian subcontinent is described in detail in my book, Building a Noble World (www.nobleworld.org). Just as the European Community (EC), established in 1967 became the European Union, so also the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), established in 1985, could become an “Indus Union.” By following the EU model, the economies of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and Myanmar, which were once an integral part of the ancient Indian subcontinent, could be molded into a formidable “Indus Union.”

Although creating an “Indus Union” could be viewed as a Herculean task, the economic benefits should be substantial enough to overcome present political differences. The EU region has a history of political differences even more hostile than that of South Asia, yet EU countries are now successfully integrated economically and politically. In South Asia, also known as the Indian subcontinent, invaders succeeded in keeping people subjugated using the “divide and rule” policy. Knowing that the partition of India on August 15, 1947, would lead to armed conflicts between Pakistan and India, Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948), known as the Father of India, wrote to Lord Mountbatten, the then Governor General of India: “It would be a blunder of first magnitude for the British to be party in any way whatsoever to the division of India.”

The most perilous issue standing in the way of an “Indus Union” is the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. The territory known as “Kashmir” covers a total area of 85,806 sq. miles. Chinese-controlled Kashmir occupies 19.2%; Pakistani-controlled Kashmir has 35.5%; and Indian-controlled Kashmir has 45.3%. The Kashmir conflict began when the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act 1947, which not only divided the subcontinent into India and Pakistan but also stipulated that the 562 Indian princely states could accede to India or Pakistan, or remain independent. Although both India and Pakistan are against Kashmir’s independence, some Kashmiris believe that Kashmir should become an independent country – a status Kashmir initially had for 72 days after the British granted independence on August 15, 1947. In the pursuit of peace and prosperity in the Indian subcontinent, the irrational hatred between Hindus and Muslims must be uprooted. The cultural bonds among South Asians, shaped through millennia of history, are much stronger than their superficial religious and ethnic differences. In India’s past, the cultural identities were not Hindu or Muslim, but were multicultural. India has been a homeland for Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, and Jews. Yogananda (1893-1952), the world-renowned author of the book, Autobiography of a Yogi,” commented: “Countless Hindus and Muslims, now as in the past, have lived side by side in amity. Men of both faiths, in immense numbers, became disciples of the ‘creedless’ master Kabir (1450–1518); and to this day he has millions of followers (Kabir-panthis).”

Benefits of an “Indus Union”: With a humanistic and democratic approach, an “Indus Union” could work toward prosperity and peace among its member countries with a key objective of having its own unified currency similar to the euro.

The unification of the Indian subcontinent based on the EU model offers the following benefits:

1. An "Indus Union" will give top priority to solving the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, which has been standing in the way of regional stability and prosperity for over six decades. Like the EU, an "Indus Union" will have its own Court of Justice to settle legal disputes between its member countries, such as the Kashmir dispute. The competent judges in the Court of Justice will be representatives from each country whose impartiality is unquestionable.

2. An “Indus Union” could end the deadly arms race between Pakistan and India. Imagine if the money spent on the combined defense budgets—over US $41 billion—were used instead to reduce the abject poverty of the people in the Indian subcontinent.

3. An “Indus Union” would become the world’s largest consumer market. With a combined population of 1.48 billion people living in the Indian subcontinent (World: 6.6 billion), it would attract unprecedented levels of commerce and foreign investment.

4. Like the EU, an "Indus Union" can have its own central bank to issue and manage its common currency, say Indo. This common currency will protect incomes and savings, lower borrowing costs, and promote trade, investment, tourism, job creation, and prosperity in the Indian subcontinent. The strength of the euro during recent financial crisis has already demonstrated that in turbulent financial waters it is far better to be on a large ship than in a small boat.

5. An “Indus Union” could influence regional human rights issues such as those in Tibet. The plight of the Tibetans is a human tragedy. To survive as a cultural and religious entity is a basic right of the peaceful Tibetan Buddhists. With solid support from an “Indus Union,” the Dalai Lama, the world famous leader of the Tibetan Buddhist religion, could negotiate more effectively with China.

6. An "Indus Union," with the world's largest population, could get a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. According to Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the European Commissioner for External Relations, the United Kingdom (UK) and France can merge their permanent seats on the Security Council to form a single EU seat. It is only a matter of time before the EU gets a Security Council seat.

Prosperity projected for the Indian subcontinent: Despite many difficulties, the Indian subcontinent is approaching a brighter future. Rama Tirtha (1873-1906), a renowned professor of mathematics, observed and identified cycles of time, which he called the Law of Periodicity. In accordance with this law, financial prosperity has been moving in the past 5,000 years from the peak of civilization in India. Prosperity passed through Persia, Assyria, and further west to Egypt; next came the turn for Greece; after that, Rome, and then Germany, France, and Spain; then it traveled to Great Britain. It did not stop there; it traveled further west to America. In America, prosperity traveled from the east coast toward the west, until it reached California. It then crossed over the Pacific Ocean with the cycle of prosperity turning back to the East. In the Far East, Japan has already become a prosperous country. In his book, “In Woods of God-Realization, Volume IV,” Rama Tirtha declared: “After Japan, China will rise and gain prosperity and strength. After China, the sun of prosperity and learning will again smile at India.”

Solution to the lack of democratic representation in the UN's Security Council: Currently, there is a missing link between individual nations and the United Nations (UN). Since its foundation on October 24, 1945, the UN has grown from 51 to 192 member nations. It strives to maintain global peace and security through its Security Council. Five nations (P5) - Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and the USA hold permanent seats in the Security Council and have the right to veto any resolution. If one of the P5 says “No” to any resolution, then it is “No” even if the rest of the world supports the resolution. This cannot be called democratic. The Iraq war has proved the ineffectiveness of the UN. Therefore, the best hope for peace and harmony in the world is to develop a strong unity amongst neighboring nations by forming effective regional unions. These regional unions can become the vital links between nations and the UN, thus adequately representing the world's population at the UN level.

It is significant to note that South American countries have already formed a regional union, which is based upon the EU model. Effective May 23, 2008, South American countries evolved into the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), from its predecessor, the South American Community of Nations (CSN).

With the EU growing in Europe and the UNASUR in South America, it is now time for other regions to follow suit. The UN would do well to facilitate the evolution of the existing regional unions such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the African Union (AU), the Arab League, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on the EU model. Once regional unions are evolved throughout the world, their memberships, instead of present memberships of individual nations, in the UN's Security Council would transform the United Nation (UN) into the United Regions (UR), a more representative, democractic, and effective world-governing body.

In the interest of humanity, the rule of "right is might," not "might is right," must prevail in the world. To this end, powerful regional unions need to be evolved, no matter how difficult the task is. The sooner people realize that the earth is but one country, and that there is only one race—the human race, the better off humanity will be. It is humanism, not nationalism, that can ultimately spread peace and prosperity in the world. In his book, Imagine All the People, the Dalai Lama states, “We need a world body where each member’s function is to protect humanity in general, without considering 'my nation,' 'my continent,' 'my religion,' or 'my culture' first. The well-being of humanity at large would be their main concern, beyond all notions of artificial frontiers.”

About the Author

Shiv R. Jhawar is the founder of Noble World Foundation (www.nobleworld.org) and the author of the book, Building a Noble World, available at www.amazon.com as well as at the United Nations’s book store in New York. He holds a Master’s degree in Accounting from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. Licensed in 1979 by the United States Treasury Department as an Enrolled Agent to practice before the IRS, Jhawar has been representing clients before the IRS in income tax audits and appeals. His credentials include: Illinois CPA Society, International Affiliate Member A fellow member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.

Replied at user talk page (User talk:Sjhawar). Franamax (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

re The Comet Dog copyright text
Coren,

I have made adjustments to the very limited amount of text that was "similar" to potentially copyrighted text. I believe that should solve the problem.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan4ten (talk • contribs) 17:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Southern Claims Commission offending text
The offending text has been significantly altered. I have removed your bot's tag. Diltsgd (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Link colors
I boldly made them white. Of course, it's your userpage :) Tim Song (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks unusual with the underline remaining the default color, though it's understated in a reasonably nice way. Thanks, by the way, I was trying to trick the styles into obeying, I hadn't even considered the more direct way.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ... that did lead me to the template I wanted though, LinkColor was what I needed. Thanks again.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hum, I learn something new everyday :) Tim Song (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Richard Orjis
Hi

There is a discussion that you may be interested in defending yourself at Talk:Richard Orjis. Thought you might like to know --5 albert square (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

CSBot false positive for Pileup (disambiguation)
Got a false positive from CSBot for Pileup (disambiguation) based on this page: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Pile-up which appears to be a Wikipedia mirror. FYI, I was moving an "Other uses" section from Multiple-vehicle collision that was discussing alternate meanings of "pileup" that had nothing to do with multiple-vehicle collisions. Since I was only spinning off a section to its new disambig page, the page move caveats don't apply. Hope this helps. --Brhaspati\talk/contribs 17:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

CSbot false positive for 10th Air Support Operations Squadron
Your bot gave a false positive for this page I wrote up from Air Force Lineage and Honors histories publicly available. The false positive stated I ripped the page off of ranger95.com's 10th ASOS page (very little is similar on both pages). What tests do your bot use to determine plagarism? I just don't want to run afoul of it again! ;-) TDRSS (talk) 03:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Silliman Song
Hi Coren - your SearchBot tagged the article I just created entitled Silliman Song. I am removing the text of the song per your bot's advise. I would like it to be noted however that creating the article was done in good faith considering that other editors are posting university hymns in Wikipedia as well, without these articles being tagged for copyright issues (e.g. University of the Philippines). I will also be requesting for the deletion of the article since it will be useless without the main text, and much of its description is already covered under the article for Silliman University. Thanks for your advise on this one. As always, I am doing my best to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines. -Aclarado (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, since you're an administrator as indicated in your userpage, I would like to request that the article Silliman Song be deleted. Thanks. -Aclarado (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've redirected to the Univesity's article, which seemed like the simplest solution. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Query
I m new to wikipedia. I was wondering if I could contribute information obtained from any application whose copyright I have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonofthewolf (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by from any application. But you can contribute information you own the copyright to.  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.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The Tree Council (UK)
Give me a break - the bot has over-reacted - I have only just started the article. I have more to add from personal experience at grass roots but the bot has jumped in a bit too quickly this time!Cj1340 (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

a note about Nancy Atherton
I just started an article about Nancy Atherton as part of the wikipedia library project and after copying a list of her books from inside a copy of her most recent book, your bot showed up. While a list of her works is no doubt available many places I did not lift mine for where the bot suspects. Keep up the good work, I am going to remove the tag. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Monkey King's Daughter®
Not sure how to resolve the posting but: my posting is drawn from my own website and I grant permission to use it for Wikipedia.

I hereby affirm that I am T.A. DeBonis, the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK located online at http://www.themonkeykingsdaughter.com/ ].

I agree to publish the descriptive content of my website http://www.themonkeykingsdaughter.com/ under the free license for Wikipedia's use.

info@themonkeykingsdaughter.com SENDER'S AUTHORITY (copyright-holder) DATE 26 Dec 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulijing1234 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The flashback Project
Hi Coren, Your bot has successfully picked up that a large amount of text is taken from our other site. As I am the author of the content on our website there is NO reason why i don't allow this text to be used and linked to on wiki.

Many Thanks,

Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theflashbackproject (talk • contribs) 22:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Something up your alley
You might want to improve the description for the upcoming picture of the day. Template:POTD/2009-12-27 Durova  386 23:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Atherton
Am dropping a note to the bot, saying that the bot is confused, we have improved the article Nancy Atherton, and there is no copyright violation. Keep up the good work. Thank you and happy editing. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Stan
 * I might add that the only thing that these pages now have in common is some book titles. In order for books titles to have meaning, they have to be quoted -- a paraphrase will not do.  Surely this is "fair use."  Thanks again.  7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Stan

Your bot
Stop being a complete asshole and let me finish, which I now have. Either abandon your lousy bot or put a time limit on it or I will be forced to report it. Idiot bots getting in the way of people making routine moves is asking for trouble. I amm disgusted and expect the bot to change or be blocked until it does. What particularly annoys me is that I knowing what I am doing whereas for a newer user who didn't your bot would seriously confuse them. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 19:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * CSBot ferrets out several thousand copyright violations every year, including a number of badly done moves and disambiguations. Despite your asking so nicely, I am not about to shut it down: it holds wide acceptance and is generally viewed as a significant net positive to the project &mdash; despite the occasional trivial inconvenience to experienced editors who have to remove a transcluded template now and then.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, relax, Squeky Wheel. thik of this bot like having a Colonoscopy - sure it's a pain in a ass, but it really does do some good things, lots of good things. Carptrash (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It was far too quick, it didn't give me a chance to finish what I was doing; whatever excuses you can come up with doesn't change this; your attitude seems to be "don't give a shit if people get caught by my bot, I wont look at changing its paramenters". Just charming - another individual pointlessly turning people away from the project with wild, false accusations of copyright. I am not suggesting you delete it entirely but that you make it a bit less hurried and give people time to finish what they are doing. That is the basic respect each editor deserves. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 23:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: You Got Mail
Reading it right now. Thanks... -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 03:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If You're Even Going to Love Me...
While going through my late father's papers, I found this poem written and signed by my Grandmother on May 3, 1908. The bot found an unattributed copy of the same poem on the angelfire page. The page says "author unknown." The article I posted indicates who wrote it and why. As soon as I can get a good scan of the document, I will post it, too. Can you let it up? Thanks Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicknarson (talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Laureate International Universities
I received an advise about using copyrighted text on the article. As it's basically a list of schools, I don't see how to avoid similarity to other sites with that same list, but I don't beleive it could be seen as a copyriht violation. Regards.--Banderas (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Animal Care College
The College is a recognised institution in the UK along with many others that appear on Wikipedia- no copyright has been infringed

David Cavill Davidcavill (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot user talk message
Hello, Coren. I'd like to suggest that you revise the message left on user talk pages when the bot detects duplication of text on an existing article. The message text now suggests that the user might have been trying to split an existing article, but doesn't mention the possibility that they were trying to move an existing article by cutting and pasting. See, for example, User talk:Sitemagic. You might want to add a notice that if they were trying to rename the page, they should look for instructions on Help:Moving a page. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The message is at Template:Csb-notice-wikipage, feel free to tweak it&mdash; it's already a little longish though. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification re an ARBCOM decision
Where would be the best place to ask for clarification over an ARBCOM decision? To be clear, there has been no wrongdoing by an editor in the case I have in mind. What I'd like to establish is whether or not an article falls under a broadly defined sanction, before a currently-banned editor (who will be under an editing restriction once the ban expires), is able to edit the article. I'm not trying to override the decision of ARBCOM either, if it is decided that the article falls under the broadly defined sanction then so be it. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, on the requests' page, there is a section for clarification; but this is a simple call I would be glad to answer directly. What is the editor, the restriction and the page you are wondering about?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The user is . He asked a couple of years ago on the Reference Desk about SS Tobruk. I came across his request while researching the article. It may be that he has some info on the ship which I don't have. So, once his ban expires, will he be able to edit the article, or would the editing restriction apply? Mjroots (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, a priori no reason why the topic ban would apply; the fact that the ship is under the Polish registry is mostly incidental: it's an article about a ship, not about Poland or disputes with Russians/Soviets. &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Hopefully Piotrus will be able to improve the article once his ban expires. Mjroots (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Edwin Jacques
Please see my talk page for Edwin Everett Jacques article: As I received a message from your bot I answered it there. Thank you! sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 22:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Human editors review tagged article; that message will be read by the next that will come along. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wangchen Rinpoche
The material flagged by Coren was largely collated by Wangchen Rinpoche student Eydie Dolma who gave me explicit permission to use it on Wikipedia. She previously provided a similar version to nobletruth.org prior to Wangchen Rinpoche's visit to their Dharma Center. More detail is on the talk page.

Sstovall19 (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Python Papers Anthology
I've edited the page to remove potential copyright violations. Mauriceling (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC) mauriceling, 31 Dec 2009