Jump to content

User talk:Coren

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Former user 20140220 (talk | contribs) at 11:27, 8 May 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives
2015
JanFebMar
AprMayJun
JulAugSep
OctNovDec
2016
JanFebMar
AprMayJun
JulAugSep
OctNovDec

Your block of Tanthalas39

Hi there Coren. I've attempted to get consensus to unblock Tan here. Could you let me know if your block was simply reinstating the block of prodego, thereby making it reviewable, or was it an Arbtration Committee block? Obviously, I'm not going to touch it if it's the latter, hence why I'd like a quick clarification. :-) Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • A reasoned decision by the community trumps an emergency arbcom motion, so irrespective of Coren's response here the result of the ANI thread should be implemented unless circumstances radically change. AGK 12:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My block was a simple reinstatement of the original block to return to status quo, and not an endorsement of the previous block or a new ArbCom block. — Coren (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But your block was indefinite, and you noted your contacting of Arbcom. That's not status quo. Aiken ♫ 14:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've stopped reading the log a bit too early: there was an indefinite block for about 15 minutes while AbrCom figured out what to do, then the original block of 31 hours was reinstated. There was no reason why that block could not be undone (as it was) either by community discussion or the usual unblock request — ArbCom's involvement starts and ends with the wheel warring. — Coren (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand

I am very surprised that you closed the TfD for this template mas "delete" when there was so clearly no consensus to delete the template. I was considering taking this to deletion review, however, on that page it stated that it may be best to first discuss with the deleting admin. Please reconsider your decision to delete that template, as it is flawed. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you respond on this page, please leave me a {{talkback}} template on my user talk page. Thank you. Immunize (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why has there been no response? Should I take this directly review? Immunize (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should consider waiting more than about 2 hours. Aiken ♫ 14:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Coren's close seemed to be the right one. Read his closure statement and ask yourself if you can disagree with anything therein. AGK 15:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do disagree with it. See my rationale on the debate. We should not make things difficult for people. Aiken ♫ 15:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big mistake in the arguments which went un-noted. The statement that the template is used on 65,000 articles. It is not: it is used on at most 18000 articles as an "Expand" tag. This might include articles where several, most or all sections would need an "expand section" tag, or articles without sections. The need for the template is such that it was invented several times under different names. Since the categories "article with sections needing expanding" have been merged to the categories "Articles to be expanded" accurate measurement of the progress of the "expand" categories is muddied, but to proceed on the basis that something is not useful, without gathering data seems unwise.

In the meanwhile I have hidden the tag, except where it is used with a section parameter. Rich Farmbrough, 03:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note: Between November and March, 2,130 articles with the expand tag had it removed. Checking a random one it was substantially expanded, and had been small for a long time. Of course this doesn't mean the {Expand} tag was responsible, but it does mean that the belief that things just get tagged and stay tagged forever is wrong. We also have some information from the progress box (see right) that shows all expand articles form all the expand templates. The general indication is that the older cohorts have less articles in them. Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I have no opinion on that; I evaluated the discussion and closed accordingly, I certainly did not do any statistical evaluation of currently tagged articles. (sidebar removed) — Coren (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CorenSearchBot error: Vela Velupillai

This is a little note from (Msrasnw (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)) (we meet again!) I got a message saying that Vela Velupillai appeared to include a substantial copy of http://www.buy.com/prod/adventures-in-nonlinear-dynamics/q/loc/106/202853918.html. It asked me to write here if I thought there was an error. I don't think it is a copy and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. Someone else has removed the awful tag - but not the badge of shame from my page! I seem to be collecting them, and keep getting in other trouble (like with my little picture of the Zwillinge stamp you kept deleted) and I do not think I am doing anything wrong. I think in this case it was one of the refs that caused the problem. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, it's the bibliography that did it; it's a long string of definitely non-random text copied verbatim (as is unavoidable). The bot can't know whether text is legitimately the same, only point out when thy look "too much" alike; hence the human review.

You can, by the way, remove old notices from your talk page — they are there for your benefit. — Coren (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird error?

The bot just left a message on my talk page, saying the 1963 Scotch Cup was a substantial copy of [1], which the site can't even find the page, I see above another problem has occurred like this one, so I thought I'd let you know so hopefully you look into it. Afro (Blah Blah Here) - Afkatk 15:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it existed when the bot fetched it, but given that your article is mostly a list of countries and numbers, it probably wasn't a very useful match anyways. — Coren (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Baptiste Barla

I'll rewrite the works bit. The bot is right.I'd intended to complete these refs with the proper layout (journal titles etc) in the meantime I've deleted them.Il do this asap all the best Robert Notafly (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christ's Restoration Ministries (Liberia)

The Christ’s Restoration Ministries is a Christian charity dedicated to caring for disadvantaged, destitute and suffering children, young people and their families. "CRM" aims to rescue and restore young lives broken by poverty, oppression, exclusion, abused and to provide appropriate opportunities for a better future. A civil war destroyed the nation (Liberia) and thousands of children are orphaned and living on the streets without support, supervision or schooling. We work to restore hope and well-being for some of these, being essential for the future of the nation. Volunteers with skills for child care are welcomed. We greatly need your humanitarian assistant with childcare support (Sponsorship of the Children) in providing of: Food, Clothing, Medical care, shelter, Education and Christian training to the fatherless.

Please note that I am the sole administrator for Christ's Restoration Ministries (Liberia) where the information was copied and pasted on this web. Here's my contact: pastorsuah@ministries.com ©© —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suah2020 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern

Dear Coren,

Quit being smarter than me. Earlier today, User:AlexandrDmitri and I had to look up elided, and now I had to check elision. Please stop. The subsequent gain in my scrabble game is not nearly offset by the mental anguish.

Most insincerely,

~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This show brought to you by the letter E! — Coren (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two CorenSearchBot errors

Hi. I received false positive copyvios on (5566) 1991 VY3 and (5834) 1992 SZ14. Reverted and noted on talk pages. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 07:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text Copyright problem for Alfredo_Jahn

The text and picture is my personal property, as great grandson of Alfredo Jahn Hartman. I have added text on the page indicating that. If I haven't done so correctly, please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredojahn (talk • contribs) 02:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to add the text to the source page, not the article, or send an email as described in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zodiac Killer (2005)

Under the heading ==The Plot==, the potentially infringing content has been deleted and will be replaced shortly with original or adequately cited material. Thank you.

Lenny Phillips (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC) user name: LennyPhillips 5/7/10[reply]

Hello

ive recieved a message stating that my subission cannot be accepted as its copyright . However... its not copyright , as its public domain , and we have bother made reference to the same public domain article. it can still be edited , and fine tuned, but i dont believe there are grounds to disallow the submission adn feel that this has been done in error , as its by an automate prociedure. thanks

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coren&oldid=360882859"