Before you leave a message about CorenSearchBot leaving a template on your talk page:
If you have copied text to which you own the copyright: 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.
If you were attempting to rename an article or create a disambiguation page: Compliance with the GFDL requires that the article be actually moved rather than copied with cut-and-paste to preserve editing history. Please tag the new copy with {{db-move}} and an administrator will be able to assist you.
If the original source was itself a copy of Wikipedia text: Reusing the text is probably okay, but make sure you link back to the original article to comply with the GFDL. If the site CSBot found is a Wikipedia mirror, you may want to notify me so I can add it to the list for the future.
If the original source is in the public domain: Reusing the text is okay, but you almost certainly want to attribute it with an appropriate template (such as {{DANFS}} or {{1911}}); this will cause CSBot to leave the article alone.
If you did attribute it with an appropriate template, but it was still flagged as a copyvio, then it's probable the bot does not know the template you have used. You might want to tell me on this page so I can add it to the list.
Otherwise, remember that text found on other web pages is copyrighted by default. Unless there is an explicit permission on the page (or site) allowing reuse without conditions (or under the GFDL) you can not use that text in a Wikipedia article!
Thank you!
This is Coren's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
my page got deleted (institute of information security professionals) please can I have it back
Coren, did the page i put up get deleted?? because one of our members have our words on their site...We have all the material on our site - www.instisp.org (and are the legal owners)
Can we get our material back up? Or do we have to ask our members to remove their entries???
...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.
I see that there's another similar issue raised immediately above. Perhaps the bot could wait a period of time (an hour?) before tagging articles. ENeville00:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a case like that, it's really important that you actually move the article, rather than copy-and-paste the contents, because that looses the contribution history (which is a GFDL requirement). I'm going to be moving back the article to and delete the new one to make room for a correct move, after which you'll be able to create the disambiguation page. — Coren(talk)00:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, the page is titled "price (disambiguation)", so contributions would logically have been made in that context. Can you point to guidelines that support your proposed course of action? ENeville00:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The context is entirely immaterial, the requirement that all contributors to an article are preserved across forks and move is a sine qua non requirement of the GFDL (you are, of course, welcome to check with the larger communities around WP:SCV and WP:CP). At any rate, except for the movement of the edit history, the net effect will be exactly the same, so I'm not sure I understand where your concerns lie?
You can, by the way, avoid the problem entirely by moving the article, then editing the redirect that was left in its place into the disambiguation— that's even less trouble for you since it would usually avoid the trouble of the cut-and-paste to begin with. — Coren(talk)00:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, the edit history is the point. Correct me if I'm wrong here, or if critical details were also intended.
My concern is that there are many "Title (disambiguation)" pages that have some "John Title" entries in them. I can see the argument in this case for moving the page to "Title (surname)", and replacing the redirect with the disambiguation page because the list of names is the bulk of the info. However, such is not always the case. Do I correctly understand that your suggestion in this case is contingent upon the length of the list of names, and not a generalized statement about moving unambiguous names from disambiguation pages? ENeville00:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly. There's a funny gray area around very short list of surnames vs. large disambigs— the usual practice is that when what you're moving is a small part of the article, simply linking back to the source in the edit history is more than enough and there is no point to moving the article. The most important part is that by looking at the edit history, you can trace back all the way to article creation; and convention is that the bulk of the edit history follows the bulk of the text. — Coren(talk)00:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and please accept my apologies; I forgot to save a version of the surname page after your modifications, and that got overwritten with the move. That's a manipulation error on my part and I'm sorry I've undone some of your work. — Coren(talk)00:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked that link you quoted. It is actually copying Wikipedia information. So its not a case of me copying that website as you thought. The website is copying me! Sting_au | Talk23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This matter has been taken up with various editors and is addressed in several places including the copyright section. Virtuaology.com has given us permission to use the biographies to create stubs where no bios exist and add to articles. Damslerset
Your RFA was successful
Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana(talk)22:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well you blew that one out of the water! Congrats and have fun with the mop! If you need any pointers, I'm happy to assist. Now get going on C:CSD and the backlog you know where! --But|seriously|folks22:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mop time!! :) Yayy!! Congratulations and welcome to mayhem. If you need any help with anything, you can call on me anytime :) - Alison❤23:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's one loose end that really bothers me: Lin Shukun. I've made pleas on relevant project pages to review his work, but it doesn't seem to be happening. Based on his past associations and his COI, his contribution seems highly suspect. Despite that, Jehochman and Physchim62 both seem intent on welcoming him with open arms. Anything more that can or should be done?Kww (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to give the benefit of the doubt for now. I'm keeping an eye on things but I'm also in no hurry to start doing guilt by association. Let's allow things to simmer down and see how things fall, okay? — Coren(talk)23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your successful request for adminship. I am glad you passed, and you are welcome for the support. For information on using your new tools, see the school for new admins; you will find it very useful. Good luck! Acalamari23:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Don't hesitate to ask for help if you get stuck, even admins run into situations and get confused. Try out the new admin school too! Once again congrats! Happy editing! Lradrama12:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Sadi Carnot is banned for one year, and the remaining parties are encouraged to "move forward from this unfortunate incident with a spirit of mutual understanding and forgiveness". For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk)12:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Theatr felinfach
That was rather a quick delete if I may say so? The number of Welsh language theatres must be very limited and we surely should be giving the author and others a chance to improve the article?Paste (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about the appropriateness of the article, and believe that it describes his importance adequately enough to not fall under CSD #7. It should go through the AfD process. StrengthOfNations (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, such as Health Ranger, you will be blocked. — Coren (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)