Wikipedia talk:Suspected copyright violations/Archive 1

message: I don't think the current ways we're managing the page are really working... i.e. removing items outright and explaining why in the edit summary (too hard to track changes), or listing our conclusions on the page (makes the list long and unwieldy). Therefore I think we should create sections, and move "incoming" items there. So if something is a false positive (i.e. not really copied from somewhere), we move it to the section for those. Other sections I suppose could be "Listed as copyvio/deleted", "Copyvio URL is a Wikipedia Mirror", and "Needs further review". Perhaps we could remove items after 24-48 hours. Thoughts? --W.marsh 17:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion! I feel that copyvios are fairly cut-and-dry; thus, I'm not sure that all of those categories are necessary. It may just use more time that could be better spent elsewhere and I think the benefits that we could get from such a categorization scheme are minimal. I'm not sure though, ;what do you think about the above concerns? Cheers, -- Where 20:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright... my main thoughts were A) it would let us review eachothers work more easilly than digging through the file history and B) It would help you see any false positives and wikipedia mirrors that turned up. But if that's not useful... I personally find it much easier to just remove items from the list when they've been handled, I'll do that for now. --W.marsh 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: keeping the page manageable

message: Using a different source, I have re-created the Richard R. Nacy article, which had previously been flagged by WhereBot as a copyright problem. --TommyBoy 05:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard R. Nacy

message: The stuff from infoplease looks to be from the congressional bioguide.  I think those are all public domain, but need the  template on them. Also, if you want to find a good place to run this bot, try Category:Wikify_from_July_2006. --Rayc 03:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bioguide 

message: What is happening with Red Cross page? There have been several reports (like Spencer Township, Central Coast and United States Naval Observatory Flagstaff Station) which refer to www.redcross.org, however all of those reports were false positive. Maybe you should filter redcross links out? -- ReyBrujo 17:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out! I think that bug should be fixed now. -- Where 20:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Red cross

message: First, could it be possible to fix the summaries, to include the article name in there? And second, this was a strange report, maybe some kind of bug? -- ReyBrujo 04:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of comments 

message: I'm confused.  What is this page about?  Am I supposed to add suspect pages to some list somewhere?  Is there a category/macro to tag suspect pages with?  Anyway, Joseph Todaro looks odd to me - a great big block of unformated text by a user with no other contributions.  Can't find anything on Google, but that doesn't mean a lot.  I've asked the user, but I'm not counting on getting an answer.  Regards, Ben Aveling 13:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a page where a bot places suspected copyright violations. After an editor has checked it, the entry is removed from this page. That's why this page is currently empty. If you suspect a copyright violation but you don't know for sure, then you can put this template  on the talk page of the article in question. See the template for instructions on how to use it. Garion96 (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that.  I'll copy it to the top of the talk page, trust you don't mind?  Regards, Ben Aveling 02:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... that  is quite orphaned, shouldn't it belong to a category and be included at Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance#Copyright violations? -- ReyBrujo 02:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is this page supposed to be used? 

message: * Check this diff, the bot reported the article but did not report the URL. -- ReyBrujo 22:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bugs 

message: Could it be possible to add the user in the report? Sometimes I tag an article with a speedy tag, and while trying to check the history to put a  tag into the creator's talk page, the article has already been deleted. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 20:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be helpful...  though it would be even MORE helpful to list out {{subst:Nothanks-web|pg=The Connecting Communities Cymru Project|url=http://aehindnt.swansea.ac.uk/ccc/en/aboutus.asp}} so we could quickly cut-n-paste it and put it on the user's page. It would make this process go a fair bit faster. --Interiot 20:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I definently think that Interiot suggests would be helpful... though it might bloat the page a bit. Composing those nothanks tags is a bit tedius. Is there any way the bot could include a link to a pre-loaded version of the uploader's talk page, even? That would really make it painless to notify. --W.marsh 01:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was going to suggest that, but I guessed we were not that lazy :-) I wonder if Where ever checks this page anymore. Anyways, there is no problem with bloating, the page doesn't usually have more than 4 or 5 reports. It could even use a table format if necessary. -- ReyBrujo 01:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really lazy...  Finding the creator's username to click on is easy, the link is in the history either prior to or after deletion.  It's the copying-and-pasting of the various bits, especially if you haven't memorized the template yet, that I think does consume some extra time.  Though we're not really processing that many copyvios, so it's not that big of a deal (though this system generally is a really good thing, so if there's any way to expand it, it would be nice to do that).  --Interiot 02:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Advantage of not being an admin I guess. I simply copy & paste it from the  tag. :) Garion96 (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I've got a small bit of javascript you can add to your monobook.js, that automatically displays the filled-out  bit on Special:Undelete pages when the page was deleted as a copyvio, so it will work on other copyvios as well.  See User:Interiot/js/nothanksweb gen.js.  --Interiot 00:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick idea: add user to the report 

message: There is something I don't like from those templates, and I will be stating it here so that I don't need to post that in every nothanks template page. It says something like "If you object, please go to Talk:Page and post the correct information about copyright there" The main problem there is that administrators delete the article, and these users create the talk page to state why the article should stay. In the last week, I may have tagged 5 or 6 of these talk pages as  because they are orphaned, while explaining to the users in their talk pages why their text was not accepted. Since most are speedy deleted, shouldn't the template be modified to prevent these orphaned talk pages from being created? -- ReyBrujo 03:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that's a leftover from the 14 day listing on WP:Copyright problems. Perhaps a seperate page on Wikipedia:Copyright problems would be more practical for that. Garion96 (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About nothanks templates

message: What would people think about creating a subpage with a list of wikilinks with all the reported copyvios? This way, if any comes back, we would be able to check to see if it has been correctly rewritten, and if so, add a note to the wikilink stating the article is now valid. This would help us catch old copyvios when they come back as simple rewordings, or when the bot is down. -- ReyBrujo 18:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List with detected copyvios 

message: Nice idea! What about creating a custom message to put above WP:SCV too? Something like:
	General advice
1. If non admins list an item for speedy deletion, they should leave it listed here until it is actually deleted. This speeds up deletion, and helps avoid articles getting lost in the shuffle if the tag is removed.
2. If something is copied from a Wikipedia mirror, it may still be a problematic article. Make sure it isn't a repost of deleted content or fallout from a copy and paste move.
3. When in doubt, leave a note here and another editor will provide feedback
Some formatting required, though. We could create it at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/Advice. Also, maybe we can create a template at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/Check, where users checking the copyvios could just call it to get a summary to add here. In example, suppose the report is:
* Parish Players -- http://www.aqqe76.dsl.pipex.com/Pages/Opening_page/Opening_page.html. Reported at 01:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General advice

message: Well I was doing that since the start and I've just seen it was not the usual practice. Sorry about that then :)... On the other hand, it often happens that out of the 10 articles on the list, 8 or 9 are already speedy tagged. That makes it harder to find the remaining articles. Maybe we could do 2 sections, one with tagged but not deleted articles and one filled up by the bot? -- lucasbfr talk 23:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally missed it too. I always have removed the articles from the list and put them in my watchlist to see if the article gets deleted/rewritten or if the editor ignores my mesage just removes the speedy tag. It does clutter up the page if you have to wait till there is a red link. If it's necessary I guess we should mention to editors that they write "done" behind every article they tag. Garion96 (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, don't feel bad.  That bit was just added in the past day or so.  I think it makes sense, which is why I clarified it on the project page.  I think it also makes sense for us to indicate which articles we've tagged as copyvios, perhaps by adding "tagged" at the end of the entry.  Or they could just make us WikiGnomes admins and then not have to worry about it.  ;-)  But seriously folks, what do some admins feel about this?  -- Butseriouslyfolks 00:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I added that a few days and it's not at all a requirement, just advice. Especially with the big CSD backlogs, the tag can just get removed and lost in the shuffle. If it stays here it will be more likely to get handled correctly, as admins check this page. Non-admins should still remove redlinks, no question about it. If non-admins don't like the advice, go ahead and remove articles when you tag them... though I do encourage you to try to check back and make sure the article was handle correctly. Anyone who contributes here for a few months should get nominated for adminship, so hopefully you'll all be admins soon... there's just some new blood lately (which is a great thing). --W.marsh 02:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I didn't realize the text on the front page had been changed. I'm indifferent, it could be changed back to what it had been forever. --W.marsh 02:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not change it, I swear! :-) -- ReyBrujo 02:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Twas me.  Just wanted to make sure everybody on the page was on the same page.  ;-)  -- Butseriouslyfolks 03:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non admins deleting items on the list? 

message: This section can be deleted after a couple of days.
* -- www.awesome-rope.info/sterling-rope.html. Reported at 01:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is safe to assume that, if two users have agreed that it is too generic or a false positive, and you don't disagree with those opinions, the section can be deleted without having to copy it here. You can make it that at least one of the users agreeing must be an admin, but may not be necessary. -- ReyBrujo 04:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I just didn't want to delete it before W got a look at it. I suppose I could have just left it on the main page, but it was disturbing me there.  :-)  -- Butseriouslyfolks 04:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Traditionally we've left stuff on the main page to discuss it if needed, and that's what I'd prefer we do... it's just the easiest way. --W.marsh 20:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Catamount Ski Area]] 

message: Either the mighty Wherebot is down or else the world has suddenly woken up to copyright issues, as Wherebot has not reported any SCVs in nearly a day.  I'm getting bored.  I just left a message for Where to alert him to the situation.  Although I forgot to ask him whether Wherebot will pick up where it left off or start with new posts after it is back online.  (Done.) --Butseriouslyfolks 04:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How strange. For some reason, the Wherebot process had terminated. I tried to make it so Wherebot should restart if this happens again and started it up again. -- Where 14:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wherebot Down? 

message: Per Where, User:Wherebot works off of a news feed, so any copyvios posted while Wherebot was down will not get flagged.  Where is working on a process to review prior postings for copyvios, but this may not be implemented for a while.  I've been poking about the recent changes and caught a few copyvios manually, and I'm going to continue to do so. If anybody is inclined to organize this effort, please do. --Butseriouslyfolks 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In the meantime

message: Per Where's note on my talk page, Wherebot will be down for a couple more days. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bot down again. e-mailing Where. -- lucasbfr talk 16:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Back up. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Down again, emailing Where. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wherebot's down 

message: I don't know if it is feasable, but if someone has a computer that is always connected, maybe we should contact Where to arrange a backup bot in case the first one fails? I could do it, but I can't access my computer remotely so I can't start it when I am not at home. -- lucasbfr talk 07:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Twould be nice, as Wherebot is down again. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a piece of code released under GPL. Unfortunately I can't bring a backup bot at the moment (I'm moving). Anyone got a UNIX system that could run a temporary bot? -- lucasbfr talk 11:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backup bot 

message: Apparently, the downtime problems with Wherebot were caused by the toolserver (where Wherebot is hosted) rebooting. Thus, I made the server check hourly to see if Wherebot is up and restart it if need be. Hopefully this will fix the problem :). -- Where 05:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three cheers for Where and his bot!! --Butseriouslyfolks 05:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed bot downtime problem for good (I hope) 

message: With the re-keyed passages from Clicketyclack at Special:Contributions/Robertterwilliger, do we need the  box? --Knowpedia 05:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, but I think it's ok.  Most of them have already been deleted. We're down to 5 there and just 3 or so more.  Let's let it ride . . . --Butseriouslyfolks 06:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hip, hip, hooray!  :-P  --Iamunknown 05:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog 

message: I know we tend to tag stuff as copyvios, calling a spade a spade and all. But this apparently causes problems for OTRS and people in general sometimes, as when people are spamming us with copyvios, they eventually clue in and say "I release the rights" and then it just gets deleted as spam. It saves a lot of time if we just tag/delete it as spam (G11 blatant advertising) in the first place. If you think about it, spamming some copy from your official website is a very basic form of blatant advertising, since that text was written just to promote the company, and therefore meets G11 to a T. This is not a requirement or anything you'll get in trouble for not doing, but I've been trying it for the past month or so and the results have been positive. You should mention in edit summaries though that the text is also a copyvio, that kind of clears of the application of G11. But if you find it takes you too much more time to do properly, just stick with copyvio tagging as usual. --W.marsh 14:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to apply both tags where it is clearly spam because I think it's fairer to let the contributor know that simply removing the spam elements or rewording the copyvios will not make the article acceptable.  Both must be done. --Butseriouslyfolks 16:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyvio vs. advertising 

message: Reid Bryson looks to be copyvio of http://ccr.meteor.wisc.edu/bryson/bryson.html but the page creator claims that It is extremely sparse and summarized. I doubt if this violates any copyright. William M. Connolley 09:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If my understanding of copyright is correct, fair use assesses the right to copy a small percentage of a text (small not being defined, and varying on the importance of the copied parts). The original "interesting part" of the source is roughly 3k chars, the disputed part of the article is roughly 1000 chars (although some of it has been rewritten). It is not a blatant copyvio, but I believe it still qualifies as one. -- lucasbfr talk 10:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed or rewritten all of the copyvio text. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reid Bryson 

message: Not sure if this is the right way to bring this up -- if it isn't, please let me know -- now that I've prefaced myself with some CYA, it seems that Disney%27s_Adventures_of_the_Gummi_Bears is being used by one of its own external links as an unattributed source (site in question is "http://cortneywilliams.com/gummibears" , aka the 3rd external link in the list). Is there a simple way to deal with this or bring it up to the Powers That Be? Again, sorry if this is the wrong forum for discussion on this issue, and thanks in advance! JasonDUIUC 14:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are thousands of sites like that. Usually one would contact the site to tell them that they need to attribute the information they take from Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia itself really only cares for sites that take a lot of articles without attributing, like most of the ones listed at WP:MIRROR. -- ReyBrujo 16:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link is copyvio'ing Wikipedia 

message: It's reporting a copyvio with no source every 3-4 minutes, and these do not appear to be copyvios.  I have notified Where. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wherebot appears to be back to normal. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hurray.  :)  --Iamunknown 02:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wherebot is on the blink 

message: I should have mentioned a few days ago that I've been seeing newly created articles from WP:AFC pop up as copyvios with a dead source link.  I assume they're being triggered by some sort of mirror when the blurb from AFC is posted into the mainspace for expansion.  A lot of these are being helpfully created by User:Delldot, who does check them for copyvios, so if it appears to be a copyvio and you see that username, please take another look. -- But|seriously|folks  16:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:AFC]]

message: Wherebot and thus this page are now 1 year old! By my rough estimation, based on wherebot's 6100+ edits to this page, we've deleted around 4,000-5,000 copyvios through this page. Recently I've been going through 6-month old pages that had no formatting when created, and essentially none are copyvios as detectable by the Google test - so in my (biased) estimation Wherebot has been a total success. A year ago, as was shown, there were a whole lot of copyvios sitting around in articles. I think we've slowed and maybe even stopped them from being introduced at article creation.
Nice work, Wherebot, Where, and everyone who's worked on this page over the past year. --W.marsh 03:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All hail the master and his creation!! -- But|seriously|folks  05:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy birthday Wherebot 

message: So, uh, how am I supposed to handle these things?  It's confusing! --Haemo 02:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kilbot 

message: Wherebot's back to doing what it did in late June, reporting frequent false positives with no source.  I left a note and email for Where. -- But|seriously|folks  05:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wherebot malfunction

message: Well, CSBot finally works without human attention grumble captchas, and is now on.  I'll keep an eye on it, but for the remaining day of trial or so it should run without pause.  — Coren (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good deal; CSBot is pretty dandy.  --Haemo 01:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CorenSearchBot trial, part deux 

message: For some reason, Dumbbot is adding item's listed by Coren's bot to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 August 9/Articles. Any idea what's up here? At a glance it might be unnecessary. --W.marsh 13:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe because of the category the templates put the article in?  I didn't know there was a bot that scraped those.  — Coren (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumbbot question 

message: What everyones thoughts on a bot that automatically removes pages once they have been deleted? It would work in a similar to the HBC AIV helperbots. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would totally be apt for a bot to take charge of this process that adds some unnecessary Wikipedia space edits to user contribution history.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *You mean remove redlinks on the page?  I'd be all in favor of it!  — Coren (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, that was the idea :-) I'll have a snoop around to see who could create one. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If only such things could create themselves :P...thank goodness for bot creators.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *User:HBC AIV helperbot has a similar function (as well as merging duplicates and turning on/off the backlog template).  Perhaps it could be beaten into this function?  Alternatively, if you can't find anyone, I could add this as a function of CSBot, I suppose, or make a distinct bot for the task.  — Coren (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *:Silly me.  You even used helperbot specifically as exemplar.  :-)  — Coren (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking the same. -- But|seriously|folks  03:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm.  Can this function be built into your existing bot?  I'd write it, except I'm unfortunately kind of wary right now about picking up any new BOTREQs, understandably, and I'm rather busy.  — madman bum and angel 23:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've found someone to create a bot that could do this task and I will be putting in a bot request tomorrow, anyone with bot experience interested in running the bot? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot 

message: Please accept my apologies.  After it's been running for a couple of days, it looks like CSBot gave all of you a lot more trouble and work!
:In case that wasn't immediately obvious, that comment was tongue-in-cheek and meant more as an exclamation of pleasure at CSBot working as hoped than an apology.  — Coren (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies (of sort) 

message: Could the bots possibly ignore articles tagged with . These are invariably okay to use on Wikipedia, but might get deleted on accident if reported, or offend people who upload these articles. --W.marsh 18:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CSBot does, or at least is supposed to ignore them now.  Was any flagged in the last couple of days?  — Coren (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several were today, but they seem to have been reported by Hermesbot. --W.marsh 23:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bot owner request 

message: Hey, CSBot now has 400 tagged articles since deleted.  That's at least 400 fewer copyvios (not counting the rewritten articles).  Yeay!  — Coren (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, copyrights suck. -- But|seriously|folks  02:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editcountitis and other diseases 

message: Hey there.  One can now add a wikilink to User:CorenSearchBot/manual#Unprocessed requests and get a second opinion of a page from CSBot.  — Coren (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual second opinion 

message: Is it just me or is HermesBot a little oversensitive?
Wikihermit:  I suppose its sensitivity is tunable?  Would you mind trying fiddling its sensitivity down for a day or so to see the difference?  — Coren (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  It seriously needs to be toned down; it's disrupting the process here.  It does get it some of the time, but the noise is not worth it.  — madman bum and angel 05:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second that.  I'd rather have a few copyvios go through than leave our little crew of WP:SCV patrollers discouraged over a massive list that we will never be able to keep up with. -- But|seriously|folks  06:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the above; he's way too sensitive.  I'd also suggest blanket "ignores" for any and all naval ship articles.  --Haemo 06:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It would also be super if we could have the bots check to ensure they aren't reposting things but that's probably impossible.  --Haemo 07:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.  — madman bum and angel 07:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, well, we're down to a one day backlog O_o ---Haemo 07:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed; it looks better organized.  Usually we only have a couple hours of backlog, though (4 to 5 articles).  In other news, I just looked at an article where the user created the page then added .  That's helpful!  :D — madman bum and angel 07:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd be surprised how often that happens.  I basically found this page because I used to do this, but by monitoring the "newpages" log.  This is much more efficient.  --Haemo 07:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a risk, however, that as the number of possible matches increase the humans'  capacity to analyze them properly diminishes.  I don't have numbers to back this up, but HermesBot leaves me with the feeling of a much higher rate of "marginal" matches— while it admitedly catches some that both the other miss.  That's why I was wondering if reducing its sensitivity somewhat would leave us with a better pick of articles to check, but still catch the ones CSBot and Wherebot miss.   — Coren (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fairness, I just reviewed 5 HB reports and only 1 was a false positive.  And HB is now removing redlinks, which rocks! -- But|seriously|folks  03:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep; he definitely seems to be improving.  --Haemo 02:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and YEAH FOR AUTOMATIC REDLINK ZAPPING!.  Just had to say it loudly.  :-)  — Coren (talk) 04:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone needs to tell me if this is going on next time :-). I never really check this page :-p. ~ Wikihermit 21:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HermesBot 

message: Would it be reasonable to exclude bullet lists from comparison?  I'd think that'd get rid of those track listing false positives, but I'm afraid more troublesome lists might slip by...
Or can someone else think of a reasonable way to not hit every track listing that gets posted?  (The question on whether every single *beep* CD out there should have its own WP article in the first place is left as an exercise to the reader).   — Coren (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Most of the lists I've seen that are copyvios also have other copyrighted text that comes with them. My humble guess would be, maybe you could write a routine to ignore bullet lists that are copyvios of amazon.com. The Evil Spartan 17:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazon.com and cdbaby.com.  I think that would be a great start.  Other types of bullet lists do get copied in with the bad kind of copyvios, and I don't think the noise from the CD tracklistings overshadows the signal (yet). -- But|seriously|folks  17:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track listings 

message: ClueBot II now removes redlinks every 10 minutes.  :)  -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 19:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:ClueBot II|ClueBot II]] now removes redlinks 

message: From what I've seen so far, the new bot is doing a very nice job! -- But|seriously|folks  01:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I bugged Wikihermit for the source to user:HermesBot since he left. Alpta 03:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand he's still around here somewhere . . . -- But|seriously|folks  08:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep; that's definitely him.  He got renamed (check the contributions), and now he's doing everything he used to do.  Interesting, as is the username...  — madman bum and angel 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alptabot

message: I switched the instructions at the top of the page to a transclusion format to make it a little easier for us to edit the list and a little harder for us to accidentally bork the instructions.  I think I did it right.  If anything else can be transcluded, assume I just didn't know how and go ahead and do it.  -- But|seriously|folks  07:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Transclusion

message: Welcome back to COBot, whose flurry a few days ago turned up many fresh copyvios not detected by the other bots.  Now we just need a few more hands here to keep up with the new heavier workflow . . . -- But|seriously|folks  01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: COBot

message: Hey there, I've added a list of frequently given instructions about how to fix copyvios to the top of CSBot's talk page.  Could you guys take a look and see if I messed up or forgot anything?  — Coren (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked it a tiny bit.  I 'spect that will save us a lot of work down the line.  Great idea! -- But|seriously|folks  20:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:CorenSearchBot|CSBot]] instructions 

message: For some reason the User:CorenSearchBot thinks this is copvio, so just use one of the other many sites that have case law quotations instead. The bot is stupid. --Mattisse 23:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove http://supreme.justia.com/us/521/346/case.html & substitute another that User:CorenSearchBot doesn't think is copyvio but says the same thing)  

message: I removed a source that I did not have to. I looked at your site and you said I had copyvio http://web.utk.edu/~scheb/Hendricks.htm but if you look at the article history that was not true. You tagged me for http://supreme.justia.com/us/521/346/case.html. That is contrary to what you Bot site reports. I don't think your bot knows what the heck it is doing.  --Mattisse 00:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going by my article history - you tagged me for copyvio for a site I did not even use! What's the deal? - Incompetent Bot! 

message: Bot is screwed up and doesn't know the difference. Raising havoc in wikipedia editor's life for no reason. This bot should be stopped.--Mattisse 00:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your bot  accused me of copyvio of a site that itself is a copyvio ! 

message: [] Look at the article history. And not only that, you were wrong.
* Here you tag me one minute after I create the article on October 10. 
I want to know where I can complain about this.  --Mattisse 00:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This bot tagged me as copyvio the same minute I created the article for the second time this week 

message: I complained to ANI as I think this treatment is wrong and you seem to think it is O.K. And today your bot not only tagged me the same minute I created the article but the bot was wrong. The site you accused me of copyvio was actually a copyvio of the reference citation I gave in the article that you tagged. I have no hope that this will stop as this is the way of wikipedia. And you and your friends think this is an O.K. way to treat editors.  But I do not. --Mattisse 01:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left him a polite explanatory note on his talk page.  In time, he will learn to love the bot like the rest of us.  -- But|seriously|folks  04:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I will not create articles on Supreme Court decisions any more, as those are the only articles of mine the bot has tagged. It must have a fetish for that. And I object to the bot protecting a student's copyvio site of U.S. Supreme Court quotations in the U.K. when I had referenced by a footnote citation a legitimate source of the Supreme Court quotations. The bot is screwed up and I now will be skeptical of that bot's tagging. I will disregard it on other people's articles and abandon articles of mine, should it do it again. But as it is only Supreme Court decisions that it tags, just won't do any more of those.  --Mattisse 14:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, you didn't put quotes around the part that was copied from the UK site, so it was plagiarism.  Just adding a footnote when you took it word for word is not acceptable.  The bot is a computer program that uses Yahoo to determine whether a page is a copyright violation.  It cannot pass the Turing test, it is not capable of judgment, it cannot determine which of multiple sites containing plagiarism is the original.  (Blaming the bot for that is grasping at straws, in my view.)  As is stated abundantly clearly in the template it leaves, it's entirely possible for it to be wrong, and if so, just remove the template, explain on the article talk page, and continue editing the page.  It's not harassment, and I'm sorry you felt that it was.  I have been helping out on this page when I can for a little bit now and 99% of the time, it's not wrong, and it's incredibly helpful to root out the hundreds of pages we get a day that are copy and pastes of copyrighted text.  I'm sorry that you were part of the <1%, but I don't think that it should have been viewed as any of the things that you say it was.  —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In all fairness, CSBot has a false positive rate closer to 10%— there are a lot of copies of copies of ultimately permissible text out there.  But that false positive rate is, as far as I'm concerned, incredible given the difficulty of the problem set.  — Coren (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I complained to ANI as  tagging me  twice this week within one minute of creating an article is wrong 

message: I have temporarily blocked Wherebot for twenty-four hours as it is malfunctioning.  I'm aware that it does this from time to time, hence the short block; however, a contributor is creating articles en masse and Wherebot is flagging each one of them (for the record, the articles are non-violations), disrupting Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations with blank reports by doing so.  Where has been notified.  — madman bum and angel 15:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wherebot blocked

message: We have a problem:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<Error xmlns="urn:yahoo:api">
                The following errors were detected:
                <Message>limit exceeded</Message>
</Error>

Anyone knows how to ask Yahoo for a bigger limit?  — Coren (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've unblocked Wherebot since we're otherwise undefended.  The first 5 reports do not contain source links, but some of them may be copyvios.  Let it catch a few more different types of articles before shutting it down, pls.  If I get distracted and it needs to be stopped, hit me up on my talk pls.  Thanks!  -- But|seriously|folks  19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restarted CSBot on my own server, at least temporarily— the Yahoo limitation appears to be per IP and there are other tools on the toolserver that seem to use Yahoo (hence hitting the limit).  — Coren (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have checked some of Wherebot's recent reports, and enough of them are not obvious copyvios to make me doubt that it is working properly, so I'm reblocking for now. -- But|seriously|folks  21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh oh! 

message: Looks like they changed the API yesterday.  Small changes required; CSBot show now again be able to find new pages.  :-)  — Coren (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bah. API change.