User talk:Coren/Archives/2009/January

Re: FadulJoseA and others 'confirmed' to be the same user?
Hi, Coren. And Merry Christmas! I'm sorry but you are mistaken: I am not user:cosmic anthropologist nor user:hunting tarsier nor user:MCLeander nor user:PCFlores3 nor anyone else. Remember that the computers that I have been using in our school and in at least one nearby internet cafe for internet access, are shared by scores of other faculties and hundreds of students, and we have had cases of password hacking in the past. At any rate, thanks for your effort and careful analysis. By the way, I'm more interested in you finding out who user:fadulj really is. I have the suspicion that he is my academic nemesis--my colleague here in my school who cleverly made me look foolish in the internet, subtly making it appear that I'm sick, a plagiarist, and would engage in self promotion and sock puppetry. But I also wish him a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!FadulJoseA (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You have to understand that this justification is the checkuser equivalent of "The dog ate my homework" and is not likely to be taken at face value on its own. My only input into the affair is the technical verification that your edits have come from the same computer on campus as the other edits.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing my SSP on Fadulj. Took me forever to sift through all that, and it went unaddressed for a month or so, so I'm happy to have it dealt with :) Good god, reading his latest defense above, well, the irony is amusing if nothing else. It's worth noting that even if this was a massive campaign by an obsessive academic nemesis investing months to ruin him on wikipedia, who he still wishes a merry christmas and happy new year (LOL), there is no shortage of abusive edits by FadulJoseA himself. Adding self-references, both to wikipedia articles and self-promo linkspam, that even the most naive and gullible judge still can't interpret as anything but abuse. -Freqsh0 (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Dear Coren,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

 Majorly  talk  21:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Review Board proposal
Hi. I am gonna try and stick to your 4 rules, be polite, be welcoming, assume good faith and no personal attacks, however; what I am about to say may be a bit blunt exceptionally blunt, so I apologise if it comes across the wrong way.

I have marked myself as an oppose to the creation of the Review Board - I don't understand what the whole point of this is, to be fair. You have been on the ArbCom for a little over 11 days, and already you've managed to create something which could potentially cause absolute chaos!

Please understand, Wikipedia is bound in red tape already. We have a CVU to watch over vandalism, administrators to watch over us, stewards, bureaucrats, checkusers, OTRS, then we have an ArbCom, who are supposed to keep an eye on everything else, instead of delegating it to another group of people. You are the ones who are supposed to sort out stuff when its beyond the user & the admins.

If the review board is created, this is what we have: Users being watched over by admins being watched over by bureaucrats, checkusers and stewards being watched over by the ArbCom being watched over by who knows what??? We have enough red tape here now. We seriously do not need any more.

With all the rules, policies, procedures, checks, double checks, mediators, admins and an Arbitration Committee, we're gonna get to the stage where we potentially start scaring editors off. This is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, not one which is so caught up in rules, bureaucracy and its own insanity that no one wants to edit it :)

May I please ask you, what did you create this for, and why you think it could help Wikipedia? You may very well be in a minority of "not very many", but I'm interested to find out a little more.

Regards, and look forward to hearing from you. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Who watches the watchers, indeed? I may have only been a sitting arbitrator for 11 days, but the worry that nobody is in a position to insure that checkuser and oversight, two privacy-invading user rights (by definition and necessity) are done according to the rules in genuine, and legitimate.
 * This proposal is to address that. &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern, but very soon, this could go overboard. We've been discussing this in fact on the #wikipedia-en irc channel. So we create a board to watch the watchers. Next, people are gonna be moaning cause the watchers who watch the watchers aren't doing their jobs properly, and we wind up with watchers watching the watchers who watch the watchers... Do you see where this is going? For every authority, there must be a higher one to oversee them. The question is, where does it end?


 * The answer in my opinion, is not more bureaucracy. Its reform. We need to reform the existing processes to avoid confusion, and potentially, all out mutiny. At the rate we're going, there are gonna be so many authorities and boards and watchers, this could all get very very messy indeed. Maybe a little rethink could be in order :)  Thanks for replying to me, and sorry if what I posted seemed a bit rude. I do lose my rag rather easily. Regards, Thor Malmjursson (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your worries about slippery slopes are ill founded. By definition the review board would not be empowered to do anything that needs review; just like the ombudsman commission arguably should have been (but cannot, in practice, be because of their strictly limited scope and their inability to act outside of a complaint; if someone does a checkuser improperly the target would not normally ever know about it&mdash; how could they then place a complaint?)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


flaminglawyerc is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Timestamp for archiving goodness: &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Kojak (2005 TV series)
This is not a duplicate article. Kojak (2005) is now a redirect page to Kojak (2005 TV series) ABCxyz (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC) = duplicate= yes the earlier page did not have the name as case sensitive so the later one was created and the earlier one can be deleted. thanks for the help L Ahuja (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC).

a still small voice
taking content from the correspondence school and using it for wikipedia is what i was asked to do by the head of the school. what is problematic and causing potential deletion?? A Still Small Voice (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the guide to requesting and formalizing permission to use copyrighted works on Wikipedia. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, I changed your block of Brophy to indef after incivil comments were left on his talk page. If you disagree, I'll change it back. Toddst1 (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Admin discretion. It's your block now, though, and you get to handle unblock requests and appeals.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Why God Never Received Tenure"
This is a copyvio. You should remove it from your userpage. Giggy (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is very, very dubious. It was a collective, mostly anonymous endeavor that (probably) originated on Usenet in the mid 80s; it's been reprinted myriad times (even in a 9-point version similar, but not identical, to the original by Readers' Digest), motified, added to and removed by countless reposters since.  Even the (IIRC, 7-point) "original" usenet version probably wasn't&mdash; more likely than not adapted from a circulating joke in academic circles that may date from the 60s.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You've proven my point; there's no way of knowing the owner of copyright, and therefore there's no way of asserting that they release it under a free license. "Internet Public Domain" is not accepted here. Giggy (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked for a second opinion here. Giggy (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Trump International Hotel & Tower Las Vegas name changed to Trump Hotel Las Vegas
This is a real change to the property that has just recently gone into effect. I am trying to make all necessary changes to the article...I redirected it to a new article with the appropriate title and changed the name within that article wherever possible. I will also try to locate any addiction mentions of the old name on Wikipedia.

Jimmy (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerns
Coren, I am concerned with the following statement: "The Arbitration Committee is aware of the matter, and is currently investigating. More information may be available, along with a statement, shortly." I believe that any hearings on this matter should be as public as possible, and that the administrator in question should have an opportunity to publically defend himself. Like many other members of the community, I am strongly opposed to secret trials by ArbCom or anyone else. Moreover, in this instance, I am concerned that desysopping the administrator in question might have a chilling effect on those who wish to obtain deleted content for perfectly legitimate purposes (e.g. mirroring deleted, unencyclopedic fancruft on third party websites). *** Crotalus *** 15:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are jumping to conclusions that are, at this time, unwarranted. In the first place, we are still looking into who, exactly, Soong would be an alternate account of;  secondly, we have no certitude that Soong is also the one in the article (although that does appear likely); third, there is no indication that, if that is the right Soong, he acquired the test results from the deleted revisions (as opposed to having originated them in the first place), and finally that even if all of the above is correct, what our next step would be.
 * If an administrator ends up being looked at with an eye towards desysopping, then that administrator will be given an opportunity to respond. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. *** Crotalus *** 16:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I used copyrighted material. It won't happen again.
I didn't realize that the data on Calflora.org was copyrighted. Now I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wholesolutionsdude (talk • contribs) 04:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/WereSpielChequers 2
Hi Coren, its now more than three months since Requests for adminship/WereSpielChequers, and I'm contemplating running again. As you were one of the oppose votes last time I wondered if you could give me some pointers as to what you'd like to see change before my next RFA?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I am now a member of the Arbitration Committee, you'll understand that discussing the merits of a prospective RfA candidate is a delicate matter. I can, however, discuss your previous attempt.
 * The biggest stumbling block, I see, turned out to have been the perception that you lacked sufficient policy experience. The cure for this is, simply, time and activity in the appropriate areas.  The questions you want to ask yourself are, "Have I been active in policy discussion and enforcement areas?" and "Have my interpretations of policy and guidelines been generally well recieved?".
 * A secondary matter, but one that bears consideration, was the tone of your request. While few or no editor would support a lighthearted request that would have otherwise opposed it, there are a number of editors that expect a request for the trust of the community to be taken seriously and that would oppose on that basis.
 * Finally, you might want to consider that many editors feel that three months is at the edge of acceptability for a new attempt after a failed RfA. In any case, I wish you the best of luck and remind you to never take a failed RfA as a reflection on yourself.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Coren, thanks for the feedback and especially the final sentence. I'll explore the first point further with other opposers on policy grounds, have taken the second point onboard and as for three months being on the edge of acceptability, well I'm in no particular hurry - I anticipate that liaising with those who opposed my first candidacy will take some time and won't be the only thing I need to do, so if I run again it won't be for a while. BTW Hope you're enjoying Arbcomm  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you would be hard pressed to find an arbitrator willing to use the word "enjoy" in relation to the job. :-)  But yes, I appreciate the opportunity to contribute.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fringe Science proposed decision
"This is one of the aims of the civility policies; to ensure that what would have been a simple content disagreement escalates into an all-out conflict over multiple fora."

Did you perhaps mean "does not escalate"? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my. I didn't let that illusion of arb infallibility last very long did I?  :-)  Fix't.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * May I invite you to join WP:OMGcom? =P Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

BaniGul is banned User:Nisarkand, Khampalak, NisarPakistani, Afghan4Life, HamburgTajik
BaniGul, a person who vandalize the articles, is the sockpuppet of banned User:Nisarkand, Khampalak, Afghan4Life, HamburgTajik and NisarPakistani--88.68.216.100 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Haskins
You got me during the 60 seconds both existed for the purpose of a disambiguation move! Zaphraud (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

RfArb clarification WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE
Hi Coren -- at this request, I noticed your comment that the community ought to be able to solve the issue. Here's the thing: we have, big-time, and have exhausted WP:DR in the process. Four RfC's just this year, plus all kinds of noticeboard requests, etc. etc.: these are always a split decisions, and the only way change happens is when one group of editors is strong willed-enough to prevail at low-level edit-warring. That's a nadir I'd hoped ArbCom could change. We really are at the end of WP:DR, not the beginning.

Basically, we've got one group of editors WP:IAR-ing the relevant part of NPOV, WP:PSCI, and just wanting to characterize as pseudoscience pretty much anything that a source has criticized. And we have another group saying that we should stick to WP:PSCI and not through the pseudo label around too casually. All you guys need to do here is either say, yes, WP:PSCI applies to that list too; or, no, it doesn't. Either way, please do something. It's precisely because I have read WP:DR that I took this to Arb as a last resort. I won't be offended if you still decline (and I hope you're not offended by this note), but I just wanted to make the best case I could for you guys to look at it. all best, Backin72 (n.b.) 06:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Calypso Ichthyological Database
Coren,

Althogh I actually own the copyright and text as added to Wikipedia I think its easiest if I just rewrite the data in a new format which I will do now. Many thanks

Gerald Jennings —Preceding unsigned comment added by IFOCAS2 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Justice courts (Oregon)
Your bot incorrectly flagged the Justice courts (Oregon) article as being lifted from http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/judicial/judicial38.htm. this is in error in that while there are some similarities in some of the sentences, it is not the same text and simply uses common descriptions about the basics of the subject of what the court is and covers. Lestatdelc (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Planorbarius and Planorbarius corneus
The bot was correct that these two articles have a lot of text and illustrations in common. However that would be normal for a genus article where the genus contains very few species. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Synthetic metals (reply to a Bot comment)
There was no copying problem in this case, because the material is basic information on the journal, available at the journal web site. Nevertheless, I deleted or reformulated most of it to fix a possible problem. Interesting and useful bot ! Regards NIMSoffice (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Korani (goddess)
I noticed that the article Korati had been changed to remove all reference to the goddess of the same name, so I created a new article Korati (goddess) and copy-pasted the content across. Then I got the message from your bot. I'm not sure what to do about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T@nn (talk • contribs) 14 January 2008


 * I've addressed this one with the contributor. (No GFDL concerns, since he was the original contributor, but it's possible that the goddess should not have been removed from the original.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My Bad
I just remembered I did the same thing earlier. Someone edited the article Karl Moore to another subject entirely: a professor, so I created another topic Karl Moore (academic) and copy/pasted the information like I did before. I got the error message, but I thought that if I just explained in the edit summary of the new article, that it would be alright (so I removed the error message) Anyway, if you wanted to delete the second article (the first one has been reverted to the original topic) then go ahead. Sorry, and I won't do this again, I promise. T@nn (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Gabriel Van Dievoet
The original source of this article is, WIKIPEDIA FRENCH, Gabriel van Dievoet

The text of Speedy Look Encyclopedy ([ http://www.speedylook.com/Gabriel_van_Dievoet.html] is a bad automatical and robotical translation of this french article from WIKIPEDIA FRENCH

see Gabriel van Dievoet

Nervius Secundus —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

Morag_Siller
I recently received a bot message about copyrighted content being used in my resent Morag_Siller article..

I would just like to inform you that I have now got the original content licensed under the Creative Commons... To Verify this please visit moragsiller.com and view the Creative Commons icon / statement at the bottom.

I hope this stops this article from deletion. If you have any questions please dont hesitate to contact me.

MichaelEHowe (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't resist
Roflmao. Durova Charge! 05:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as this doesn't end up being my epitaph. :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

sections of an article i sent to a journal for publication on LEO FROBENIUS have appeared in WIKIPEDIA which infringes on copyright. i believe the journal have given my article out for abuse.

here is the original full text that also appears in WIKIPEDIA

"In 1910, Frobenius arrived in Ife after hearing of the “ancient” city where supposedly “Atlantis” and the god or goddess of the sea resided. The Ife culture lies in the western part of Nigeria and had been the most important city of the Yorubas for centuries. According to some estimation, the Ife culture existed long before A.D. 800. There is no evidence on when the Ife art culture began. However, it had been estimated with the help of radiocarbon dating that fully developed artworks were being produced between the eleventh and fifteenth century. As Hays (1959) observes, Frobenius did not fit the regular image of an ethnologist and more often than not was obsessed and “near paranoia”. Usually Frobenius made no preliminary surveys of the sites or did not directly participate in the excavation. He provides us a form of his narrative: [A]nd at this I called upon the [local] people themselves to dig in those areas, where, according to tradition, an ancestor god had descended into the depths of the earth; they were to bring me everything that they found, since I would buy even such things as broken potsherds lying around which might seem meaningless to them. This suggestion brought success. "

take it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.130.213.176 (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser request
I'm sorry, but you're wrong, at least in terms of this case, as the checkuser was useful, in that Ibranoff's increase, or decrease in block time hinged on whether or not he was evading his block.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Shubhayan Mukherjee
I recently received a bot message about copyrighted content being used in my submission for "Shubhayan Mukherjee".

I already emailed the permission letter to permissions at wikipedia dot org. The letter allows me to use Shubhayan's Biography on the Wikipedia Site. I hope this stops his article from automatic deletion. If you have any questions please email me.

Cristina Rodriguez Rios —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristinarios (talk • contribs) 08:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Article Arena Romanistica
The wikipedia-article about Arena Romanistica is written by one of the editors of the journal: please visit our webpage http://www.arenaromanistica.uib.no/english/editors.html I appear last among them, Ole Våge. Please don´t remove this aricle. Best regards Ovaage (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Ole Våge

Sunrise Fire
I reposted detailed information about this book. The material I used is also found at www.qualityparks.org. I have permission to do this and so have untagged the site. Thanks, Mindy —Preceding unsigned comment added by MindyBlock (talk • contribs) 15:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't delete Channel 2 Action News!!!!!!!!!!
Even know it looks to be similar Channel 2 Action News is not similar to WSB-TV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willpb9 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

please dont delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stpeterschurch
hi, am the author of both the page and the bot identified page www.stpeterschurch.org.nz/whoweare.html

so please do not delete it..!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albin klm (talk • contribs) 00:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard Short
Hello! There are now two Richard Short articles. Please have a look at Richard Short (actor) and the Disambig page. Thank You! -- K72ndst (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Corenbot templates, a few changes
Hi. :) In a long delayed follow-up to our previous conversation, I have added some links to Template:Csb-notice-pageincluded, Template:Csb-notice-pageincludes and Template:Csb-notice-wikipage. Main purpose, to give clueless newcomers a link on their talk pages to relevant policy or guideline that may better help them figure out how to fix the problem themselves (since WP:C now prominently links to Donating copyrighted materials and Requesting copyright permission and since WP:SPLIT explains how to note duplication in edit summary and why). I've done my best to avoid my natural tendency to run long. :D I trust it goes without saying that I'll be not at all offended if you disagree with these changes. :) I've also categorized them, which seems likely to be non-controversial to me. If I'm wrong, please let me know (and, of course, revert as appropriate). Watching here in case you'd like to discuss it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, the editors like you who handle the copyright problems are best suited to tweak that message to what would best direct the newbies. I have too little time left to handle SCV now with my ArbCom duties, but you've proven several times that you own a fully functional set of clues so you're more than welcome to edit those templates as you see fit.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Article about Bong Cambi
Please dont delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bong_Cambi, the article about Bong Cambi... I'm also the author and the owner of www.geocities.com/murdoc_262000. you can e-mail me on murdoc_262000@yahoo.com if you got questions or any doubt. Bong Cambi is my idol thats why i want him to be viewed here in wikipedia. I know wikipedia is one of the good reference in research studies that's why i want this article (Bong Cambi) to be viewed by anybody.

Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asero26 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

--Asero26 (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Article about CUMEX
Thanks for posting a bot message about potential duplication between the page about CUMEX and the one about ANUIES. I already reviewed both and they are different. The problem is that both organizations are very similar in mission and goals. However, ANUIES is an "umbrella" organization while CUMEX is more selective and it only includes public universities. At your convenience, please let me know if I should do additional changes. Regards, --Ojuelos1 (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Taking of Chelsea 426
I recieved a message warning about copyright infringement (The Taking of Chelsea 426), but the plot of the book is relevant to the article, as with every other New Series Adventures. I have removed the tag from the article, is this okay? Sama4 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Article about CCRG
Some text on this page was taken from another web site, however, it was set in block quotes and clearly indicated as a quotation. Therefore I have removed the objection.CCRG ado (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Article about Fermiscan
We are the author of the Fermiscan website therefore please do not delete the page http://www.fermiscan.com.au/irm/ShowStaticCategory.aspx?CategoryID=201&HideTopLine=True. We own the copyright to all materials on the Fermiscan Website. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fermiscan (talk • contribs) 23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

redirects tagged as copyvios
See Plumber snake - it's a redirect, but Coren searchbot tagged it as a copyvio of the page it redirects to. DuncanHill (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

CLTV
I'm not the one who copied the copyright of Central Luzon Television. Otherwise, another Wikipedia user who copied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aztegdude (talk • contribs) 03:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom agenda
Your observations about Wikipedia as a battleground attracted by attention -- they bear repeating:


 * More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment. ArbCom needs to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues.


 * Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty). While it is appropriate that the Committee never rules on contents, it should be more active at curtailing content disputes. Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia.

My concerns about this broad subject have not waned; and I don't quite see how anything constructive can be adduced from the recently posted ArbCom agenda -- here.

The process-focused list of topics doesn't seem to acknowledge that this kind of over-arching problem confronts no opposing view but yours -- no further discussion, no plausible remedy, no potential evolution towards something better. In fact, it appears that the issues you've identified are obscured by the more narrowly-focused schema. For me, your key terms are:


 * Collaborative editing?
 * Wikipedia is a battleground for agenda-driven editors?

Do you have any suggestions about how to encourage ArbCom to consider an a prioiri agenda item which steps back to encompass this broader perspective? --Tenmei (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't expect there will be significant movement forward on this front (except for the occasional arbitration remedy) for the next three or four month; the current focus of the committee as a whole is the desperately necessary procedural improvements that will, when in place, allow the committee to concentrate on the harder, fundamental problems.
 * You'd be surprised how much overhead and time the current setup consumes&mdash; delegating some of the load to various other editors and bringing some organization to our work are prerequisite to most everything else: right now, even making a simple decision takes forever.  That's why I'm more than willing to focus on the current concerns before examining the really tough stuff so that, when we get to it, all of our efforts can be concentrated there.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping me to glimpse a broader array of inter-related issues. Perhaps it is enough, for now, that my name is added to the list of those offering positive feedback.  Your observations struck a responsive chord. --Tenmei (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot found a Wikipedia mirror
Hi, you might be interested to know that CorenSearchBot sent me a message when I moved some text (but not all, so the move tab wasn't really an option) from Ryd to Ryd, Linköping, stating that the text was similar to http://wiki.xiaoyaozi.com/en/Ryd.htm (explicitly stated to be a Wikipedia mirror). I guess the site should be added to some whitelist of sorts. //Essin (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This was moved via cut-and-paste, so CorenSearchBot was correct. Somno (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Commercial_Open_Source_Software
Hi, no copyright problem on Commercial_Open_Source_Software. I created this new page with text from the GFDL lincesed wiki freeopensourcesoftware.org for which I'm the owner and primary maintainer. I will remove the tag. Reliablesources 21:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) 21:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reliablesources (talk • contribs)

User:CorenSearchBot
I had no idea of its existence until I was patrolling RC recently. Well done. It's brilliant. Cheers -- Samir 07:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Turnrow
I am currently interning for the University of Louisiana at Monroe to work on publishing turnrow, a bi-annual literary journal that is published by the university. I thought that it would be really neat to see it on Wikipedia, as it would make the publication even more accessible to both writers and readers. I was using information in general from turnrow's site at the University to explain what it was on Wikipedia. It is a work in progress, but I've seen other literary journals on this site so far as well.

Green eyes170 (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the guide to requesting and formalizing permission to use copyrighted works on Wikipedia. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Debrahay (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)debrahayDebrahay (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC) IANPP is an international organization that defines "Natural" products. I have added a page to Wikipedia to help define it's purpose. I have copied their definitions of what "natural" should be. It is public domain and is not a copyright issue. Thank you.

Comment
I invite no action or comment; but I wonder if it might be worthwhile for you to examine what I have posted as a "comment" at User talk:Tznkai? Plausibly useful? --Tenmei (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet_investigations/Fadulj
It appears this guy is back to working on his favorite obscure medical topics, even though he should still be blocked. Unfortunately, there isn't really anyone interested in fact checking his theories (see WT:MED). Xasodfuih (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi
I think I am leaving. Cheers PHG (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)