User talk:Coren/Archives/2010/December

Help needed

Hello. Can you please, as member of arbitration comity, read Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo article split and post your opinion? Threat is based on WP:ARBMAC, and we are trying the last step in normal dispute resolution, before requesting full arbitration. Please, read the post, at least to the line, and post your opinion. As this is lasting for years now, we need your help to end it nicely, and without sanctions and arbitration's. Once again, Please, we need your help. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi

What's wrong with article SIXX that I created and I'm currently working on? I got message from "bot", but i do not understand where is the problem?--ArmedRadar2307 (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There is no copyright problem with the article you created. It's just a case of the bot getting a false positive where there wasn't any actual copying. Sorry for the inconvenience. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note, request

I and others mention you here. As in the past (and per your suggestion "if you end up being in the middle of an enforcement request, seek help from an arb to help clarify this"), I'd appreciate your advice (not the least because you are quite familiar with my topic ban). Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Get Well Soon

Hi,

Get well soon.

Ashish Sharma (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been back for two days now, just forgot to update the notice.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 17:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Same here, haven't had a chance to pay much attention to my watch list since before Thanksgiving. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

AC Noticeboard

All I will say is that that's throwing petrol on the flames. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's more about not playing the revisionist game. Perhaps an argument can be made that that statement shouldn't have been made in those words, but it has. — Coren ^(talk) 23:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour

J'espère que vous/tu me pardonnerez/-as cette sorte d'intrusion... Je suis Claudi Balaguer, membre de l'association de langue catalane "Amical de la Viquipèdia" Amical Viquipèdia qui n'a de cesse d'essayer de devenir un Chapter secció local de Wikimedia mais en vain jusqu'ici. Je suis un peu au courant du fait que vous essayez de promouvoir un Chapter québécois et je pense qu'il est essentiel d'unir nos efforts et d'échanger des informations afin de pouvoir avancer ensemble et de faire changer l'état de fait actuel qui nie les Chapters à toutes les entités qui n'ont pas d'état propre. Nous avons mis en place une campagne de support à notre cause et il est possible de signer une liste de support dans le lien suivant [[1]]. Contrairement à beaucoup d'autres wikipédias je n'ai pas encore importé ici le modèle qui permet d'apposer son support sur la page d'utilisateur parce que je pense que notre proposition, voire même le fait de supporter une langue minoritaire suscite des réactions adverses par ici (même si je pense que la plupart des wikipédiens ne sont pas intolérants...). Je crois que nous avons tous besoin de nous unir et de travailler ensemble, et personnellement je suis prêt à aider dans la mesure de mes petits moyens (et depuis une certaine distance) à la création d'un Chapter Québec et de toutes les autres langues en situation minorisée ou sans état, et je crois que c'est le cas pour tous les membres de notre association. Je me tiens à votre/ta disposition pour de plus amples informations. Merci beaucoup/gràcies et mille fois pardon pour cette intrusion dans votre/ta page, à bientôt j'espère, cordialement. Je vous/te souhaite d'excellentes fêtes de Noël! Claudi/Capsot (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Again

A second AE has been filled against me; this one seems like an attempt to re-litigate the previous one; anyway it can be found here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Piotrus. I'd again appreciate your input. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

False Positive

Hi, I'd like to report a false positive. CorenSearchBot flagged my initial stub National Archives of Spain as connected to [2] The first time I ever saw the material cited was when the bot directed me to it; there is little connecting the article and the webpage except that they both the National Archives of Spain. Thanks, I thought I'd mention it to help you fine tune the bot. Erudy (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes image issues

There is a series of images from the 1953 film Gentlemen_Prefer_Blondes_(film), e.g.

• File:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes Movie Trailer Screenshot (22).jpg
• File:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes Movie Trailer Screenshot (25).jpg

(those two shots are on the userpage User:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes but there are a lot more) under a public domain notice on the grounds that the film copyright was not renewed. I believe the 1977 copyright act would have eliminated that requirement. User:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (account created today that immediately dived into a copyvio drama related to World War II arbitration) may have issues of its own. Regards, 67.117.130.143 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It may have, but I'm really no expert on the complicated issues around images and stills from motion pictures (which carry their own baggage of case law and statute). — Coren ^(talk) 17:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I posted this issue here partly because Moonriddengirl apparently isn't feeling well, but also to bring the odd contrib history of User:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes to your attention. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for not telling me that I was being discussed here. As far as the images, which I didn't upload, [3] is a fairly reliable source that explains the situation. I read about the Communicat arbitration on his CCI entry. If you ever create an account, should I bring your odd contrib history to administrators' attention? You'd also know way to much about Wikipedia to really be a new user... Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

False positive

Re: this tagging - please can you stop your bot making false positives like this? Apart from the words "Hugh Jones" I see no similarity whatsoever between the public domain text used in the article and the website about some random Australian computer-bloke! DuncanHill (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to help new editors

Is it possible for the bot, when adding the template to a talk page, to detect if it is creating the talk page and if so to also give one of the welcome templates? This might be help new editors to become positive contributors. DuncanHill (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That should actually be trivial to implement. Do you have a particularly well-designed one you'd recommend? — Coren ^(talk) 17:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I usually use {{welcomeg}}, there are a lot of them though, there may be one somewhere which is particularly relevant for copyright concerns (I know there are ones for possible COI or spam new editors). I'll have a look later and let you know if I find a good one. DuncanHill (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There's {{Welcomecopyright}} specifically for copyright concerns, but I generally use {{Welcomelaws}} when copyright comes up since it provides more useful general links as well. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

{{welcomelaws}} looks good to me. DuncanHill (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done; we'll see how it works next time it tries to tag a new talk page. — Coren ^(talk) 17:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - the bot does a good job in flagging potential problems, if it can also point new editors to sources of guidance I think it'll be even better. DuncanHill (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible false positive

This page R. Ananthanarayan was tagged with

This article may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement of http://www.nbcindia.com/search-books.asp?f=a&q=R+Ananthanarayan.

I checked the page, and it appears to a page listing a textbook for sale. I didn't see any overlapping text other than authors name. Did I miss something?--SPhilbrickT 20:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a false positive; but I'm at a loss to explain how it came about: running the article as it was when tag into the comparison by hand doesn't seem to flag it. I'm looking into it. — Coren ^(talk) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

More Than Weird

I originally wrote the article about [[More Than Weird], but for some reason it was deleted. I retyped it with add a few changes. Please don't delete it. Neptunekh2 (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

RE:Mate Cocido (robber)

I actually moved the page because I'm planning to use that page for a popular beverage called mate cocido. --Bleff (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A question about topic bans from the R&I case

Coren,

There’s an aspect of the Race and intelligence arbitration case that I’d appreciate it if you could clarify. Since this is a question about the ability to appeal my own topic ban, I assume I’m allowed to ask you this.

The Review of topic-bans decision states that ArbCom will consider lifting topic bans from this case no sooner than six months after the close of the case. Since the case closed on August 24, I had assumed that this meant ArbCom would not consider lifting anyone’s topic ban from the case before late February. However, you’ve voted in favor of the motion to lift Mathsci’s topic ban from the case, even though it’s only been four months before the case closed.

Can you please explain to me under what circumstances ArbCom will consider lifting topic bans from this case sooner than was stated in the “review of topic bans” decision? It’s important for me to know this because I probably will want to appeal my own topic ban from this case eventually. I’m not ready to appeal it yet, but I might want to do so before February if that’s an option, as it appears to be based on the precedent being set with Mathsci. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The distinction is that Mathsci's topic ban was voluntary (though endorsed and made enforceable by ArbCom) as opposed to imposed so that enforcement provision does not apply. Strictly speaking, any editor can appeal earlier than six months — implicitly appealing the six-month limit itself in the process — but I'll not hide that this would probably not be looked on with much favor. — Coren ^(talk) 14:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure Mathsci’s topic ban is intended to be different from all of the others in terms of when he can appeal it? The “Review of topic bans” decision states that the six-month limit applies to topic bans from this case in general, without making an exception based on whether the topic ban is voluntary or not.

Before Mathsci volunteered to be topic banned, the proposal for him to be involuntarily topic banned had already received support from a majority of arbitrators: [4] (five votes in favor, with two abstentions.) The only reason he was topic banned voluntarily rather than involuntarily is because he volunteered for this after it was clear he would otherwise be involuntarily banned. Is this a normal practice for arbitration? That when an editor is clearly going to be sanctioned in a case, they can avoid being subject to some aspects of the ruling by volunteering for the sanction against them that’s already passing?

It seems a little unfair if that’s the case. Anyone who does this is only volunteering for what’s going to happen to them anyway, so they aren’t losing anything by doing so, and they’re also gaining something pretty valuable from it. But most people who are sanctioned in arbitration cases probably don’t know about this option, or the benefits of it. I certainly didn’t, and if offering leniency for voluntary bans is something that ArbCom does in general, I wish I had. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point; it's about realizing that one's behavior was subpar and agreeing to disengage accordingly, not about saying the right thing at the right time. If you had volunteered to stay restrict your editing away from the topic area just so that you could appeal earlier, that would have been misguided. — Coren ^(talk) 18:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope you’re right that Mathsci understands what was problematic about his behavior before the arbitration case, and that he’s going to remain disengaged from these articles even after his topic ban is lifted, as he agreed in the request for clarification. One of the things I’m concerned about is the possibility that Mathsci might be playing a game like what I described, and that after his topic ban is lifted he might return to the same behavior on these articles for which he was topic-banned originally.

I’m not trying to convince you he shouldn’t be given a chance to keep his word about this; I’d just like some reassurance that history isn’t going to repeat itself on these articles. If things go the way I’m worried they will, will it require another arbitration case? Or would there be a less time-consuming way to deal with these sorts of problems if they arise again? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If you haven’t seen it already, I think you should take a look at this thread at AE. There’s a pretty strong sentiment being expressed there that some of the decisions being discussed are unbalanced, including the decision that ArbCom is making about Mathsci’s topic ban. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

False Positive (John Larkin (John Paul Larkin album)))

The bot posted up a warning on the article John Larkin (John Paul Larkin album) as being a copyvio of johnlarkin.com. A quick examination of this website will show they share nothing in common except the name "John Larkin", so I will be removing the notice shortly. BTW - A big thanks for all you and your bot do to make editors' work easier/more productive!

-- Joren (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

False positive: Cheeky little monkey

CSB found that Cheeky little monkey was a copyvio of http://cheekylittlemonkey.org. After looking over the site, I found nothing to indicate that the text was copied from that site. I am notifying here instead of noting this fact at the article talk page because the article qualifies for CSD under other criteria. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Some things I want to discuss

1. First of all, I think should be a category for "Central African people of ethnic or national origin" because every other country on wikipedia has a category for people's ethnicity so I thought Central African people should have that category. 2. Hikaru_Sulu on his wikipedia page says he is of Filipino descent so there should be a category that says :Fictional_American_people_of_Filipino_descent. 3. There should be a category for Fictional people with ADHD or Fictional people with Dyslexia. Percy_jackson is listed under both. 4. I would like to make an article about the novel More Than Weird. Here's an article about it: http://www.umanitoba.ca/cm/cmarchive/vol16no4/morethanweird.html I don't know why it was deleted. 5. I would like to add a summary for the movie The_Seventh_Coin. Could someone help me with that? Thank you! Neptunekh2 (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Décio Esteves / Copyvio accusation

Maybe you will get your bot up to some standards before you let it loose. Simply appalling. A thorough unreserved apology on my and the topics talk pages is expected. Oalexander-En (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

PS

Below is all the information on the topic by http://en.sambafoot.com/players/1321_Decio_Esteves.html :

Décio Esteves

Card updated the 25.06.2007

Details.

Full name Décio Esteves da Silva

Birth The 21.05.1927 in Rio de Janeiro [RJ]

Position Offensive midfielder

Career

Clubs 1955-1962: Bangu-RJ

1962-1964: Campo Grande-RJ

1965: Olaria-RJ

Club titles Roca Cup: 1960

Goals in Selecao 0

Seleção 1 Games in our cards : 19.12.1968 Yugoslavia,

Information by sambafoot.com highlighted is positively incorrect! Then we have substantial omissions like death in 2000, Copa América 1959 participation and coaching career. In summary, sambafoot contains about contains less than 400 bytes of information - less than 10% then the article provided by myself. Oalexander-En (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard Argentine

Richard Argentine is another ludicrous tagging by the bot. You really do need to do something about this. DuncanHill (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Public domain text from the old DNB

The bot seems to be tagging public domain text from the old DNB which editors have copied from Wikisource (see the last two on Boleyn's talk page for example). It also is oversensitive - as I noted in a thread above it is also tagging for just two words in common, (see Isaac Chauncey, where the only similarity was a name. Is there anything that can be done about this? DuncanHill (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It is. There's a problem right now where the bot works right for all but tiny articles or tiny webpages. I'll have time to investigate thoroughly during the holidays to fix the problem; but there is little choice but grin and bear it for a few weeks in the meantime. — Coren ^(talk) 15:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Origin of modern humans

Origin of modern humans - website of which this was an alleged copyvio is actually a partial mirror of Wikipedia, and the article there says the text is from Wikipedia. False positive. DuncanHill (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is not a false positive - this article was copied from elsewhere and was in violation of WP:CWW until CorenSearchBot led the editor to comment on the article's talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The bot didn't label it as copied from wikipedia, it labelled it as a copyvio of an external site. DuncanHill (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to propose a change to the template to say "contains the same text as is present on ..." or something to that effect? The material was copied, right? Without attribution this is often a problem under one or more policies/guidelines regardless of the actual source used. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that the bot tags things correctly. I'd also like to propose that it doesn't claim that external sites own the copyright to Wikipedia articles. DuncanHill (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

WWII request for extension of evidence phase

Hi Coren. I have been asked by Communicat (talk · contribs), a prominent party in the World War II Arbitration case, to request the drafting arbitrators to accept a late submission of evidence. Communicat's request was made at User talk:AGK#arbitration and content, request[5]. AGK [•] 12:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

wiki reputation and all that

G'day Coren - I've followed only minimally the inevitable broo ha ha around jimbo asking questions of arb-elects, and whether or not this is new, appropriate etc. etc. - reading the questions, that old odd situation popped into my mind concerning your (volunteer?) assistance in maintaining a web site which features what I vaguely recall was rather odd 'word porn' - ie. stories about all sorts of rather nasty stuff. I wondered if you'd ever had cause to discuss or reflect upon whether or not there could be any concern that it 'might reflect poorly on Wikipedia?'(that you're an arb, and the nature of the site etc. etc.) - perhaps you've had the chance to discuss this with Jimbo? I can't remember if the original broo ha ha about your involvement in 'that' site came out here, or on Wikipedia Review, could I ask if you're still involved with that site at all too? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It came out on WR, of course. Where else is the art of imagining mountains where molehills lie taken to such artistic level? I don't believe it came up at any point before my appointment, given that it cannot be construed as "reflecting" in any sort of way upon the project; no more than (say) who Brad's clients are in his practice as a lawyer. They are a customer of mine, simply enough. It was discussed (briefly) on arbcom-l when one of the arbs that participated on WR (I wasn't keeping attention at that time) noticed it.

On a related note, I don't think I've ever heard the euphemism "word porn" before, but I suppose it's apt in a quaint sort of way. Yours? — Coren ^(talk) 04:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I take full credit for the phrase (which isn't really a euphemism though?) - although it's so obvious, I'm sure equally smart and good looking people have used it before... you ask 'Where else is the art of imagining mountains where molehills lie taken to such artistic level?' - well duh! - here on en-wiki, of course! Obviously I don't really know the nature of your customer / client relationship, but I don't think it's accurate to describe the potential impact on project reputation as equal to that of Brad's clients - if the foundation, or Jimmy in his not-so-clear kind of way, considers it important to manage reputation, my tuppence worth fwiw would be that your relationship with that site would be a risk point - thas' all.

I found the WR thread, and you might want to reflect on this wise post of Kato's - with a bit of luck this is the link to the full thread. On a tangential note, how do you currently feel about Wikipedia Governance, and do you have any plans for the mid term future in that regard? Privatemusings (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I still think that there isn't any to speak of and that the time has long come for this discussion to take place. Annoyingly enough, being on the committee places one in the best place to observe where the lacks are but in a very difficult place to do anything about it.

I hope some movement in this direction starts during the year, and I'll do all I can to help if it does (I'm hoping that the brouhaha around the elections will encourage that discussion to start rather than just fade for another year). Either way, I doubt I'll run again after this current term ends and I'll probably look at what I can do once I'm a "retired arb". — Coren ^(talk) 12:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Jacques Bourboulon

Hi. Your bot takes as reference an article which has entirely been copied from the wikipedia entry before it was deleted by an administrator. I wonder why it considers this entry as copyrighted. Given that http://www.artandpopularculture.com seems mostly made from copies of wikipedia articles, I wonder if your bot should still consider this site as a valid check point. Hektor (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request - checkuser block on IP

Can you please review the request at User talk:Davidbsher and either decline it or grant it? Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Inauguration of Dilma Rousseff

I have increased the article's quality at least 90% with my latest edits. I added a whole lot more sources to it... Why is it still being considered a copy?

By the way, the Buenos Aires Herald page is a dead link... --Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Höllentalferner

The bot seems to have got this badly wrong. I translated the article from German Wikipedia, but either way the link it alleges a possible copyright infringement contains no substantive text and the site's search engine couldn't even find Höllentalferner! I have removed the tag on the article. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

There Lived Kozyavin

I don't know what problem your bot has, but it is not copied from youtube! It's an animation like all others. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

List of top 10 singles in 2011 (UK)

The material was in fact duplicated from the 2010 page of the similar name, but has been edited for signficance for the upcoming year. Naturally, the article will seem extremely similar as the sourcing and figures come from the same websites. --StreetDarcy (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

So it would. It's safe to ignore CSBot's warning in such a case. The bot is smart enough to notice the similarity, but can't guess that it's both intended and perfectly okay.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 02:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:SCV

Hi, Coren - forgive me if this has already come up, but have you considered having CorenSearchBot report to WP:PUF instead of WP:SCV? Similar process, just that one is manual and the other is automatic. Regards... Kelly ^hi! 19:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a preference either way, really, but my understanding is that a number of people and process rely on the location and manner of CSBot's reporting at the time and any change could be fairly disruptive unless it's generally supported by consensus and planned well in advance. Have you raised the matter at the Copyright cleanup project? That's probably the best place for this discussion. — Coren ^(talk) 02:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Meh, best not to fix it if it's not broke. Plenty of other stuff to work on! Kelly ^hi! 03:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

CSB mistagging copyvio on stub articles

Hi Coren, can you explain this edit? I don't understand how CSB can be tagging a two-sentence stub as copyvio when nothing like either of the sentences appears on the alleged source. Similar one here - it seems like CSB may have issues with very short articles? - htonl (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It does, but my availability is a little low to look into it until the new year. — Coren ^(talk) 02:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for answering! - htonl (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

A possibly similar occurrence for you to look at when you get the time, csb tagged Robert L. Rooks (a short new article about a veterinarian from California) as a copyvio of Robert Rooks (a music producer from Michigan). Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering if you would be able to set up the bot to ignore a few sites that are showing up as a copyright violation but in reality are just copied from a public domain source without attribution. Two examples of the sites are here and here. Both have been taken from here and here, respectively. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And this one which copies this. I understand that you might not be able to do bot exemptions but this is getting a bit odd with it flooding half my talk page every time I make something. Thanks again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Coanda-1910 related discussions

First of all sorry for disturbing you directly with my help request, but I was not able the join the arbcom-l and the admins I asked refused to take this issue to the arbcom-l. In a very short description, since a xenophobic attack was started in the second half of 2010 by a particular user, the Coanda-1910 became a permanent "battle" field of biased position supported by questionable sources, against the mainstream assessment on the subject present before the attack. The subject is very complex and covered in different fashions by different authors, some times clearly biased and missing very relevant sources. Some of the problems were listed shortly in this discussion. I address this question directly to you as I cannot trust any longer the native English administrators, as they are very much subjected to a biased position and conflict of interests, especially regarding the English term "jet engine". Thank you in advance for any reply and sorry if I did disturb anyhow.--Lsorin (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a short history and recap of the problems at the Coandă-1910 article. On 3 July 2010, an editor named Romanianlies said on the talk page that the whole story was a "Ridiculous Fairytale", that Henri Coandă did not tell the truth about his work in 1910. Later that editor was directed to change his name, and he did, to Romaniantruths, and after more arguments on related talk pages, on 27 July 2010, he changed the article to remove its longstanding claim that the experimental flying machine was the first jet-propelled aircraft. On 3 September, I began to look into the problems and eventually I found that Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith and Frank H. Winter both wrote scholarly rebuttals to Henri Coandă's claims, and that they found instances of Coandă lying to people, first in 1910 when he told Henri Mirguet that the aircraft had achieved 112 km/hr (70 mph) during flight tests (it had made no flights at all), then in the 1950s and '60s when he presented various and conflicting stories about what happened in December 1910. Coandă was shown by Winter and Gibbs-Smith to have lied about the features of the aircraft, about the conditions under which it was tested, flew and crashed, and Winter showed that Coandă told some people it flew on 16 December 1910 and others that it flew on 10 December. Winter found an aviation magazine of the time period which reported bad weather and no flying at the airfield where the supposed tests took place, throwing doubt on the whole story. Winter examined drawings that Coandă gave to the National Air and Space Museum and discovered they were modern fakes, that they differed significantly from Coandă's drawings from 1910 and 1911. What I found in my research (I repeatedly visited the local university library) was that the editor Romaniantruths was mainly correct, that Coandă had lied about being the inventor of the first jet plane, and that some aviation experts believed him while others did not. I rewrote the article using WP:NPOV as a guideline, to present conflicting opinions to the reader, and the other article editors agreed that my version was the best one. Since then, Lsorin and the rest of us have improved the article further, to add more and better information. It is up at WP:GAN right now because all the editors except Lsorin and one IP from Romania are in agreement that it is very good—that it is probably the best article in the world on the subject, written with the most neutrality.

If Lsorin is helped in his mission to change the article so that less emphasis is placed on negative rebuttals and more emphasis is placed on positive assertions that the aircraft was the world's first jet aircraft, it will suffer. Any such change in emphasis will go against WP:NPOV and diminish the article.

Though the "attacks" against the article first appeared from an editor with a xenophobic name (Romanianlies), the heart of the matter is about technical claims and counter claims, not about hatred for Romanians. Lsorin's statement here that all the native English-speaking administrators are biased, acting in their own interest, is not credible. The English term "jet engine" and its many meanings have been an integral part of the talk page discussions, but Lsorin has not accepted the scholarly rebuttals saying that aircraft never flew, and if there is a possibility that it did not fly, it cannot be listed absolutely as the first aircraft of any sort. The English term "jet engine" is not the problem, it is the term "flew". Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The problems with the current form of this article are not of technical nature. And regarding that I don't think there is not a single technical expert in the subject present, in any of the related discussions. The problem presented as well here by Binskternet is the usage of two doubtful sources to impose a particular point of view which in this particular case, brings a very serious consequence of denigrating the memory of a reputed scientist calling him bluntly a liar. The doubtfulness of those two sources was already demonstrated in the discussions: first the very controversial([6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13]) aviation historian Gibbs-Smith with his full of technical mistakes and missing relevant sources, assessment on Coanda-1910 based mostly on evidence of absence. As per Frank H. Winter I suppose that according to Binksternet, Winter and Gibbs-Smith did share the same offices and NASM office, which put the whole case even more under the red light of the WP:REDFLAG. Why to state that, is because the mainstream opinion _{(covered in both tertiary sources like five day exhibition at the European Parliament celebrating the centenary of the first jet aircraft, [14], academic events, several encyclopedia and history books and primary sources like the leaflets, magazine,books news from around 1910,1911, witnesses, Coanda's patents, articles and TV interviews, his endorsing as honorable member of the Royal Aeronautical Society or Romanian academy, special medal give by the city of Paris of his work on jet propulsion starting from 1910, several museums in Romania, France, England, Germany, USA presenting unique artifacts related the first jet aircraft)} about Coanda-1910, is against the doubtful assessments of this two historians. My stance is driven as well by the WP:NPOV statement of Jimmy Wales with regard, especially to the scientific and historical related subjects.--Lsorin (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikidrips

WikiDrip thinks that WikiDrip's account password was Compromised and is requesting WikiDrip's account be unlocked so WikiDrip can log in and change the password. WikiDrip then can if required open another Wikipedia account with a new username. WikiDrip would like to have the benefit of the doubt here. The New WikiDrip account would of course link to the original WikiDrip account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikidrips —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.225.95.146 (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Note community ban discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

just let you know

We own the copyright to the previously published content on Inno Inc) and wish to donate it, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inbayarea2010 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for interrupting, as I'm not familiar with the background, but Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials may be helpful.--SPhilbrickT 19:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)