What do you mean I copied it from http://www.myspace.com/sarahchristophers? I based the filmography mainly on IMDB. I wrote the short biography my self. I also tried checking the url and it's a 404 page. How can I have copied a copyrighted item from a page that can't be found.

Hello, Coren. You have new messages at The Nut's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

First you tell everyone off for bickering about tags, now you're engaging in it yourself, and clearly against consensus? Is this the sort of thing arbitrators are allowed to do that ordinary mortals are not?--Kotniski (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't know what game you are playing here, but I have no intention to play. That you disagree with the existing policy is perfectly allowable, but does not and cannot change the fact that it is policy. I think it's too vague and overbroad, and risks whipping moral panic into a nice, mob froth. I also think that the page is not needed at all, but egregious lies in the media apparently makes such restatement of actual practice desirable. But no disagreement will make this suddenly not policy. Placing that tag on top of the page will not stop those blocks, but may mislead people into thinking that there is some question about whether advocacy or self-identification is strictly forbidden or not. There isn't. It's forbidden. — Coren ^(talk) 18:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems we do actually have the same opinion about this (except that I don't think it's allowable for individual editors to suddenly declare a page to be policy without discussion, regardless of whether what's (currently) written on the page is a true statement of practice - we could create thousands of pages of true statements of practice, but the community doesn't want thousands of policies). I hope you will support my latest suggestion at the talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I received a false positive copyvio on 25613 Bubenicek. Reverted and noted on talk page. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 23:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I received a false positive copyvio on 26267 Nickmorgan. Reverted and noted on talk page. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 07:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a request to split the section from one page to a new article and that was conducted as so.

--Thehelpinghand (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The article was created to propagate the activities of Alimaan Charitable trust which is striving for the welfare of the community. The texts taken from website are solely used as a source of Information to better support the neutrality and authenticity of this article and not as a source of sentences. Wherever required necessary modification has been done. Hence I dropped you a message and removed the tag. Regards Humaliwalay (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually own the copyright to the text placed in the wikipedia page, I have just posted the same biographical information on RedBubble as my profile:

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Meilena Hauslendale, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.redbubble.com/people/sharpieartist. 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. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

My wikipedia page is the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meilena_Hauslendale

Please let me know if you have any further questions that I can verify for you. My main source of citation on my own site is located here :

http://sharpieartist.com/biography.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meilena (talk • contribs) 15:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

may i know what does your message means?

In india there is a hindustani music related thing -- called as bandhish.so an article by same name appears in wikipedia.

what i have contributed is artcle abot the film bandish released in 1981. Both articles have same name but are different things. One is a film and another is some musical composition. Please do disambiguition by yourself and help in keeping the contribution alive. plus you check in Internet movie databse and even in articles related to the stars of the film and even from Youtube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrik88music (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] T. Canens (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, isn't that why you get the big salaries?  :-P — Coren ^(talk) 04:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question, hopefully one that doesn't violate BEANS or confidentiality. I'm not familiar with the open proxies stuff: you said Goright only has an open proxy in asia left in history, so technically Inconclusive, but no counterindications. Go by behavior as needed. - are there any conclusions to be drawn from an editor editing through open proxies? I thought they tended to get blocked (the proxies) whenever identified William M. Connolley (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that they are currently using proxies to edit, but what's left of GoRight's edits in the logs comes through some random Chinese host since blocked for being a proxy (and thus is not very useful for comparison). But the UA are consistent, so while it's not possible to say it's a match, it certainly can be the same person. — Coren ^(talk) 13:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I subsequently found Wikipedia:Open proxies (which I could have found first :-) which also helps William M. Connolley (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When Coren bot spots similarities between Foo and Foo (bar), there is a good chance that either splitting or disambiguation is occurring. Might be worth skipping these cases? Rich Farmbrough, 11:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

(talk page stalker) Pages are very often split incorrectly (without attribution) so skipping this would not be a good idea. Theleftorium ^(talk) 11:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What he said.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 13:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least catch those cases where what Coren bot thought was stolen from somewhere else outside Wikipedia was stolen by somewhere-else from Wikipedia in the first place. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just split the dab page for "proof" into two, dealing with truth and quality respectively. Your bot picked up on bits that others had copied out of Wikipedia into other websites and complained that Wikipedia was copying those. Interesting circularity there! --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just testing the Wikipedia =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msarimz89 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said here "With the understanding that any relapse is likely to be poorly received." Unfortunately it appears that Radeksz is proxying. Please look here for more information and diffs. Where would be the appropriate place for me to report this? Varsovian (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not proxy for anyone. I noticed Varsovian's edit myself and checked the sources - in fact I go into quite some detail in examining them on the talk page. I caught Varsovian misrepresenting sources and trying to use citations to support a claim completely at odds with what the sources actually say. I notified Future Perfect at Sunrise about this since he dealt with a similar case recently. Varsovian is now attacking me and making this crap about proxying up to try and save his own skin. Trying to cover up a wrong with another wrong is really ... I dunno, you pick a word, cuz I don't want to be incivil.radek (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that Varsovian's behavior on this article has been found problematic by several others users in the past (and before anyone brings it up, none of them have been on EEML), he has received about half a dozen warnings concerning his edits there from administrators at AE (each time he promised to lay off only to come back a few days later and resume once "the heat died down", or stalled by claiming not to be able to respond except by phone) and the matter has been brought up over at WP:Poland IIRC - the article has been on my watchlist for quite awhile. The article has also been the starring attraction over at WP:AE several times now, each time in regard to Varsovian's behavior there - another reason I kept an eye on it.radek (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without wondering how Radeksz stumbled upon my edits, or pointing out that he's being economical with the truth by claiming that user Jacurek was not on EEML ([2]) or that in another explanation he claimed to have seen something about this article at another user's talk page ([3]), I'll just point out that his claims regarding me misrepresenting sources is dealt with in detail at the article's discussion page [4]. Varsovian (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to Jacurek but rather to Chumchum7, Kotniski, Robert Warren, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Loosmark, Stifle and probably Sandstein (I can't remember exactly with regard to Sandstein). And more recently Nick Cooper [5].radek (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The matter seems to have been handled at Enforcement, and I don't think there is anything for me to contribute at this point? — Coren ^(talk) 14:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Has something happened today at Enforcement with regard to Radeksz? It is only Radeksz that I am asking about here. Varsovian (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing Coren is referring to your frequent visits to that page, or perhaps just the last one.radek (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]