User talk:Coren/Archives/2010/September

Suppressing revisions

I imagine if someone else were editing logged out as often as you do, their requests for having their IP suppressed would (eventually) be denied. Be more careful or just give up the damn game. It's not as though anyone cares which IP you're using. And even in some alternate universe in which someone did, they'd surely have it by now anyway. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your solicitous attention. Perhaps, then, you could solve my problem? Since about r64057 my session cookies seem to invalidate themselves randomly every couple of hours without warning, your vast fount of wisdom surely has a solution at hand? That'd be even more helpful than your most excellent advice. — Coren ^(talk) 04:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Try a different browser? A few thousand people seem to be able to edit around here everyday without issue (or at least without session issues!). --MZMcBride (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

every day* 75.183.116.243 (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

+1, irony? — Coren ^(talk) 15:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems the obvious solution would be to set your skin to something other than the default. Or, at least, the display font. That way it would be obvious that you weren't logged in. For example, the default edit font is Courier New. You can change that, if not in preferences, then in your .css. Pretty easy to tell the difference between Courier New and, say, Verdana. Lara 05:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is when my session seemingly breaks between edit and commit; I notice immediately that I got logged off, but the change was saved. MZMcBride may have overstated the matter of frequency a bit, mind you, and it doesn't occur that often — but it's damn annoying when it does. — Coren ^(talk) 15:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You could hit preview first. A habit I cannot get myself into, personally. This random signing out thing happens to me if I switch between browsers. I prefer Chrome, but if I open a link from IRC, it open in Firefox (because I use CZ), and then I get logged out from Chrome because I've logged in on FF. PITA.... Anyway, it's not irony considering I did it on purpose (above). It's not as fun poking MZ when he knows it's me. Lara 03:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Replied at my talk page. Hope you are doing well. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am, thanks. We'll respond to your email shortly. — Coren ^(talk) 19:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Dinhata (Vidhan Sabha constituency) and Sitai (Vidhan Sabha constituency)

I think CorenSearchBot has made a mistake. The link [[1]] leads to some materials linked with “Fairy Tale of a KOCH Princess, strings of Pain and Happiness and the forgotten Privy Purse!”. The only thing common is that both link to Cooch Behar district. Otherwise there is nothing in common. There is no question of copyright violation in this case, as I have collected the material from Government websites providing information about Indian elections. The text is in my own language. The same pattern has been used by me and other Wikipedians on numerous pages. Please arrange to remove the copyright tags. - Chandan Guha (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change proposal typo

Your support vote for the logging proposal in the climate change arbitration is missing a signature. Tasty monster (=TS ) 03:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So it did. Fix't. Thanks. — Coren ^(talk) 04:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

RTV

Coren, I believe WP:RTV does leave open the option to return as the same user, unless I'm misinterpreting the text at RTV (it is a bit confusing). Here is the text from RTV which seems to permit return: " if the user does return these pages may be undeleted or unblanked, and could be linked to any new account they create (if any). Of course the return of users in good standing or reformed "problem users" is welcomed if they happen to change their mind." ATren (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the intent is the same; the vanishing allowed by RTV is undone by a return. I think that whether it's the same account or another is immaterial: the courtesy of blanking things is contingent on not returning. — Coren ^(talk) 12:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Essentially, exercising the right to vanish requires you to use no accounts, not because you're forbidden from editing under any accounts, but because editing from any account is by nature giving up the right to vanish. No? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. — Coren ^(talk) 13:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Letting you know

Hello, Coren. Since you've voted in favour of two remedies concerning ChrisO, I wanted to let you know that I've brought up an issue with a clause in those remedies here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on the talk page, and responded there. — Coren ^(talk) 14:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain some of your votes in the Climate Change case

I (and I'm sure other editors) would like explanations of arbitrators' reasoning and votes in several areas of this case. I'm particularly concerned about your Fof 10.1 on William Connolley and BLPs. I've set up a section at the PD talk page here. [2] Politely discussing specific votes and the reasoning for them is the most likely way for most editors to avoid intense frustration. Many editors have put in long hours on this case and would like to know why you're coming to various conclusions about it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass blanking of ten thousand articles by a 'bot

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

In an Administrators' noticeboard discussion an interesting question has been raised. Presuming that we blank and categorize these thousands of articles, would CorenSearchBot be of any help in scanning the wikitext of the pre-blanking revisions for copyright violations? Note that CorenSearchBot didn't catch these articles when they were created. Uncle G (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The only way CorenSearchBot would find the articles now if it didn't when they were created is if Yahoo has indexed a new website (possible, but doesn't seem very likely with these articles from what I've seen) or if the copyvio was added after the articles were created (I haven't actually looked at many of the articles to remember when the copyvio was added for sure, but I think it was at the very beginning), which means the bot probably wouldn't be much help without alot of tweaking. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, User:CorenSearchBot/manual has a bug (some results show cv of [no link no link] and confidence of 141%). It's also missed a few copyvios :P —fetch·comms 22:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The bug with the broken links and 141% confidence was caused by me feeding it [[:Foo]] and not [[Foo]], so that's not an issue that should normally come up. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot is back and causing trouble

See the thread containing this diff: [3] Jehochman ^Talk 03:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

searchbot output

User:CorenSearchBot/manual shows hits in several wikipedia mirrors and wikipedia-derived sources like freebase (which is a GFDL/CC-BY-SA vio in its own right IMHO) that should be pretty obvious. 67.122.211.178 (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Try this variant on the toolserver, that one filters out many mirrors already. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It only does one page at a time, though, and The Earwig has told me he has no time to add a multiple search at once functionality at this time. If anyone else knows python and can do it, it would be greatly appreciated. —fetch·comms 23:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please look into this and reconsider the matter

I see what I would term clear personal attacks, and incivility, but I cannot support this finding as titled (as Brad mentions above, "disruption" is a term of art on Wikipedia that applies only to much more severe continued misbehavior). — Coren (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In light of that statement at F11 (Polargeo) on the PD page for the Climate Change case, I'd like you to reconsider the matter after reading the comments here on the PD talk page, including a list of 19 personal attacks made by Polargeo against me and others, mostly on that talk page, just since August 24 (I had to stop somewhere in the past since it was getting tiring to list them all). Look at them, please. Judge whether or not it's an exaggeration to say that any individual one of them is not a personal attack as defined at WP:NPA. Your statement, above, mentions problems with the "disruption" part. Perhaps you could suggest alternate language or, if Newyorkbrad does, find something to support. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

todd wolfe

I have removed the paragraph taken verbatim from outside source and would like to remove the notice placed by the bot on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Wolfe

Emahnxray (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th

[4] I'll say the same thing to you also. If you're going to support this finding against Minor4th, I expect that you'll review the evidence section and the PD talk page history and add more findings for more editors. Since Rlevse left the case, it's up to you all to get everyone named who needs to be named. Cla68 (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sept. 8 blocked editors question

You recently blocked a number of editors, a couple of which showed up on my watchlist (example). The block cited "checkuserblock: Massive sock farm", but I can't seem to find links to any investigation page or other info so I can understand the connection among editors and articles I've worked on. Thanks for any enlightenment or links. Flowanda | Talk 04:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That batch, with the same block summary, are all the same editor. The sock farm was noticed first on another wiki (English Wikiquotes) which is why there isn't an SPI here. — Coren ^(talk) 09:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, however, there wouldn't necessarily have been one anyways: sockpuppet investigations are a common preliminary step especially when someone who isn't a checkuser has suspicions, but we don't create an SPI in clear cases if we got the heads up in some other venue. — Coren ^(talk) 09:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why this is disruptive

You voted on a finding that this diff [5] is disruptive. Please explain why. ATren (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Mute Magazine

hi im removing the copyright bot infringement notice from the page Mute Magazine as it thinks the copy is from a web site called Magnet-ecp.org but this is untrue as I wrote the material myself. Thanks mrchristian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrchristian (talk • contribs) 13:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 7#Secret pages: Ok or not?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia mirrors

Hi Coren. CorenSearchBot (talk · contribs) tagged Galla Ramachandra Naidu as a copyvio earlier in the week; as far as I can tell, the text was a copy of an earlier deleted version of the article, taken from WikiBin. (It's now been cleaned up)

It looks like wikibin is another site hosting textdumps of deleted articles; might it be worth listing it as one of the known mirrors? Technically speaking I suppose content we've removed isn't really being mirrored, but... Shimgray | talk | 13:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, or perhaps we'd want to have this also tagged (with a different tag, however). I'll look into it a bit deeper. — Coren ^(talk) 14:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest not adding Wikibin to be listed as a mirror, since it reveals a lot of G4-able reposts. Maybe a different tag, but I think the existing one works fine since it only uses GFDL so even if the repost is left it's still a copyright violation until the history/attribution for the deleted article is restored. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

With this notification I was totally surprised, because I pretty much always use print sources, not trusting the web. I then looked at the link concerned. It is pretty much word for word what I wrote at GWR 378 Class, except that they can't handle templates. This is not just a wikipedia mirror, but one which updates extremely quickly - I created the Wikipedia article at 21:04, you notified me at 21:05, ie within 119 seconds. If there is any copyvio, it is the fault of that website, not me. What is the procedure? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nurith Aviv

Thank you for the link, I had not found it and have included it in the article.l santry (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Fritsch

the oakwood artical is copied from elizabeth fritsch's own website www.elizabethfritsch.com

bertie fritsch

(talk page stalker) Will reply on your talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

per clarification of TM Arbitration

I honestly asked for clarification which was questioned by editors who are not neutral to this situation, and by one who is not uninvolved. Those clarifications affect my restrictions. The restrictions and the clarification are interconnected in the most fundamental way. And respectfully, why is the arbitration being ignored. It says specifically that appeals may be made to the Arbitration Commitee. I did bold my statement rather than carry on a convoluted discussion on this page. How else to remind editors of what I had written? I hope the Arbitration Commitee will stand by their own Arbitration statements. If they don't what value do their statements have, and how can any editor get a fair hearing on Wikipedia. This is a serious issue. (olive (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC))

Note: I am one editor not three. I should be heard and dealt with as one editor. The Arbitration did not show meat puppetry or sock puppetry so please respect me and my concerns as one editor.(olive (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC))

What is the copyright problem the bot found on Grupo Exito

I started the article for the company today writing it myself without copying anything (intentionally). The bot points to a webpage that doesn't even have information about the company. Some explanation is needed.Grmike (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)grmike

CorenSearchBot is, in the end, just a dumb algorithm. It's fairly good at not making too many mistakes, but it occasionally gets confused by apparent similarity which any intelligent human would discard — this is why articles are tagged for human review. — Coren ^(talk) 23:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot & free licenses

1. Great bot, and great work. One day I'd love to get a bot like this working on Appropedia, where I'm an admin. Would that be hard to do? I'm not a coder, but have learnt some regex while getting Pywikipediabot working.

2. Just speculating (and maybe you've already added this feature since the edit I'm looking at from 14 May, or maybe it's more trouble than it's worth): could User:CorenSearchBot be made to check the source page for a rel="license" tag?

E.g. Appropedia pages contain the code:

<a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/" style="display:none;"></a>

In the end a {{CCBYSASource}} was applied manually to the Wikipedia page above.

Thanks --Chriswaterguy talk 05:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a fairly good idea, though it's not foolproof. I'll see how I can go about integrating this. — Coren ^(talk) 22:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

John Lendill

Hi, the CorenSearchBot reported that the John Lendill article I initiated appeared to include material copied directly from http://www.reachinformation.com/define/John_Lendill.aspx, but I believe that reachinformation.com is actually a copy of the Wikipedia article I initiated, but reachinformation.com must have been quick of the mark, as the article was created, and the CorenSearchBot report all occured at 13:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC). Cheers. DynamoDegsy (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd go along with that, it did exactly the same to me a few days back. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added the site to the list the 'bot doesn't care about. — Coren ^(talk) 22:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

searchbot suggestion

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

See end of section. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot

Hi. Your bot has just left me a rather odd message on a short article I've just created. As you can see if you'd like to check, there is no copyvio. The bot is a good idea, but in this particular case it's made a mistake. Aridd (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Cai Pei

Please see this article and the resulting discussion at the contributor's talk page. I can see no similarity in the text apart from the name of the article. Deb (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Really odd copy vio false positive

Your bot noted a possible copy vio of a page I'd made [6], but the weird thing was that it cited this site as the possible material, i.e. one of those Wikipedia content clone sites. Plus, it seems to give it false positives to large lists of names. --Prosperosity (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, duplication of large lists of names are copies, even though they are generally allowable ones. No bot can be smart enough to make the difference, which is why pages are tagged for human review and not processed automatically. — Coren ^(talk) 19:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot

Your bot recently tagged one of my page,Foreign Minister of Bhutan, i created saying it was copied. But it was translated from Russian Wikipedia Spongie555 (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Really?

[7] Can you please explain what I did wrong? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know, too. Not a single diff in that Fof points to anything more recent than April 5 or so. If you're commenting on some other edits that are outside the Fof, then please identify them in your comment or not comment at all. Actually, that second option would be preferable, since PD-page comments should be restricted to the diffs at hand. If you're commenting on other conduct, please comment on the appropriate page. The PD page may be read years from now, sometimes by editors in a hurry but often by editors trying to find evidence of past behavior in order to help them with serious decisions they have to make, so avoiding confusion should be a high priority, right? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, no. The comments are just that, comments. In that particular case, I agree with the diffs and express surprise that the same battleground behavior has continued during the case. — Coren ^(talk) 18:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Not your place. Show the diffs, please. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? "Not your place"? Surely, thou jests! I don't believe I'm prone to crying lèse majesté even to ridiculously overwrought criticism of the committee or its members, but this one takes the cake.

Commenting on user behavior is what arbitrators are for. My vote to support the finding has exactly the same value whether it's a plain signature or if I use the opportunity to bemoan that the username has too many vowels in it. In this case, I expressed my relevant opinion that the editor has continued to display battleground behavior during the case. Such comments serve to elucidate my reasoning, occasionally to provide advice or useful commentary, and occasionally to make plain a point which is secondary but which bears being stated.

You are entirely welcome to disagree with my opinion, or to ignore it entirely, but it is exactly my place to make such commentary as I see fit. — Coren ^(talk) 18:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. In what way did I display battleground behavior? I was politely discussing the dispute on a talk page. That's exactly what WP:BATTLEGROUND says that I am supposed to do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Coren, it isn't obvious what you are talking about. Please don't make a disparaging comment about an editor without explaining just what behavior you are commenting on, preferably with diffs. It isn't overwrought to ask you to do that and this is the third time I've asked (AQFK's second). I don't think I have to spell out the policy I'm referring to. As you know, policies apply on all Wikipedia pages, and you can't just say anything about an editor's behavior when what you're referring to isn't obvious. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Coren: When you have a chance, I'd appreciate an answer to my question.[8] Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

copyvio checking tool?

Hi. Is there a tool for checking a paragraph for possible copyvio. I looked on Wikipedia:Copyright violations, including the Resources, and could not find such a tool. (I need it for this article/topic—but it would be good for me to become familiar with such a tool for general use.) Thanks. N2e (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you want to check entire articles there's User:CorenSearchBot/manual or The Earwig's Copyright Violation Detector. For fragments such as the one you're looking at there's The Plagiarism Checker, and there's always the basic method of pick a phrase and run it through Google/Bing/Yahoo. All automated tools of course are fallible and are prone to turning up Wikipedia mirror sites, especially when the text has been present in the article for a long time, so it often takes some effort to track down possible copyvios. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd double-tagging

Any idea what happened here? VernoWhitney (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I could possibly think of is that CSBot might have lost its place. And the only way I know of that can happen is if it crashed and restarted right around when that article was created. I think it's a rare fluke, but I'll keep an eye out. — Coren ^(talk) 11:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot approvals

Hi Coren,

Sorry to contact you directly but I wonder if you know what I can do to move my BAG applications forward. Although you appear as BAG member, I'm assuming that you're acting solely as an Arbcom member when it comes to my involvement with BAG. So I'm hoping that contacting you won't be regarded as wrong.

I know that BAG has a lot of things to do so I've waited a while. I'm seeking information about how much longer my applications will take before moving to trial. I asked a question at the BAG talk page and I'm reluctant to contact BAG members directly in case that's seen as canvassing or trying to jump ahead in a queue. I don't think I can go back to Arbcom to ask about this issue either. So I feel like I'm stuck. Arbcom has clerks that can advise on process but I failed to find any for BAG. Are you aware of a BAG clerk or equivalent that could advise me? Regards Lightmouse (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Davis Cup

Hey, what is wrong with this article: 2011 Davis Cup Europe/Africa Zone, i don´t get it. Regards Kante4 (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki mirror

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Grievance --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Monge Najera - False positive

Information in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Monge_Najera is not substantial copy of http://www.tropinature.com/cvitjmn/cvit01.html: it is similar because one is a biography and the other is curriculum vitae of same person. Comment: site is no longer orphan (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onychophora), but still appears tagged as orphan. Thanks Arturo ORIGINAL MESSAGE: This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Monge najera, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.tropinature.com/cvitjmn/cvit01.html. 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.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturo zuniga (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My Wiki Planet

Hello Coren,

I have received your "Oh la la" notice about my entry.

My Wiki Planet is a Drupal project I have initiated and hope to see this "Wikipedia-daughter" develop and grow in Wikipedia's spirit.

I have written the text on the site and copy pasted here with minor changes.

I'll appreciate your reply to israel@mywikipla.net,

Sincerely Israel David Davidis147 (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppidum de Nages

False positive. See my photos on commons:Category:Oppidum de Nages —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 08:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

More false positives

Could you please look into the most recent false positives at User talk:Александр Мотин? The bot alleged a copyvio when the text of the (very short) stubs doesn't even appear in the target pages. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?) 14:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Tjaarke Maas (1974-2004) article

Dear Administrator, Thank you for your information. I have send the e-mail with the following text (see bellow)and hope that it will resolve the problem.

Subject: free license (att.OTRS) Date: 23 settembre 2010 16:26:25 GMT+02:00 To: permissions-en@wikimedia.org

I herevy affirm, that I, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the site http://www.tjaarkemaas-arts.net and specificaly of the following page of the site ; http://www.tjaarkemaas-arts.net/%20Tjaarke%20Maas.html where the present article is published. And agree to : publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

The creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the site

http://www.tjaarkemaas-arts.net

DATE 9 September 2010 (Yuryo (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:OTRS_pending

President TM ARTS www.tjaarkemaas-arts.net Yuryo (talk) 11:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Though you might like to know

CorenSearchBot is running logged out. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Lycaenidae Genuses

I (literally) just edited those 1 second ago. I AM working on this, so please be patient. Mocha2007 (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)