Wikipedia

Rochelimit

Joined 23 October 2006
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Peaceray in topic Discussion at Talk:Sarah Azhari
Learn more about this page

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. Your removal of a source from March 14 was reverted. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The reason the rule was put in place was because a significant portion of the stuff listed in these DOY pages doesn't have any sources to back them up in the linked main article. People assumed that the exact ref would be there (as you did) and let tons of crap pile up in these articles. There are a few users who have been diligently culling this garbage out one at a time, but it's a long process. Toddst1 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
@Toddst1:Actually I did not assume, before I removed the ref, I checked the main article. The first ref of the main article 1982 bombing of the African National Congress headquarters in London (linked to the word "bomb") is referenced to "the Guardian". It is exactly the same ref as the one used in the DOY, also "the Guardian". That's why I decided to remove it, seeing this as already referenced in the main article. What do you think?--Rochelimit (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
If we ref everything in the DOY even if it already has ref in the main article, the reflist section of the DOY will blow up considerably; which I think why the DOY doesn't need a ref especially if the content already has a ref in the linked article. I think it's common sense.--Rochelimit (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
What do you think? should we remove the ref from the DOY, specifically for the 1987 bombing?--Rochelimit (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Of course not. Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your cooperation Todd—Rochelimit (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've mostly given up on the project. Once the bot stopped patrolling, I lost interest (if there's a new one, I haven't noticed). The lack of participation has always been a problem and now it's been pushed to a new extreme of inconsistency that equates to a smoking turd. In line references for every item is insane and will never be enforceable - its just a bad idea. If it's not enforceable, what's the point? The idea of a nice, clean (albeit long), reasonably curated list is gone and the project has succumbed to the pressure of compliance for the sake of compliance. The project was once grounded in WP:BRAR for good reason - it worked. I've found over the 11 years since I became involved with the project, most of the harsh critics and proponents of change slip in for a couple of months and then disappear. Once in a while they will clamor for a WP:RFC and then there is a smattering of input from people with no real interest in the project, and it goes nowhere or creates an uninformed consensus leading to a mandate that is unmanageable. Anyway, that's what I think. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you Mufka, even though I mostly focused on the H&O (also for more or less 10 years), I noticed there's always been new people enforcing new idea quiet aggressively but then just gone outta nowhere, leaving the page to its extreme inconsistency. I never heard of a bot before, but too bad that it disappeared. Dear @Toddst1: I just started a [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#Referencing_every_single_line_in_DOY_is_a_..._bad_idea? discussion] in the DOY talk page. I hope to hear opinions from other wiki users.--Rochelimit (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the note and for thinking of me. I will review and reply as best I can when I get the chance. Yours, Quis separabit? 22:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I also agree with you Mufka Thanks for the input. And good luck Rochelimit with the village pump this weekend. Hopefully a sense of realism will prevail. Mill 1 (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I chose to be very neutral with this, to begin with. So either way, I'm okay, although I do feel that the rule of inline citation is redundant, tedious, and not enforceable at all. 7 months test is long enough to know that the newly introduced regulation doesn't work.--Rochelimit (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Copyvio on User:Rochelimit/sandbox

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, do you want to save this stuff off-wiki if you haven't already? Because unattributed quotation and close paraphrase of copyrighted text is also forbidden in your user space, and since it's more difficult to check than short articles because of its multiple citation sections and long length, I'm considering just taking it to MFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Before you go to village pump

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Rochelimit, I have a request for you: I realize we don't see eye-to-eye on the direct sourcing requirements for DOY entries, and I've spent a fair amount of time in the past few days going through the births section of a couple of DOY pages, finding problems and cleaning them up. (Take a look at my edit history.) What I've found is that more than 75% of the births listed on DOY pages for living people who are not athletes have no reliable sources for the DOB in the biographical article that is supposed to have them. In many of the cases where there are refs in the articles for the DOB, it's an WP:IMDBREF.

Before you take this issue to Village Pump, could you take a look at any DOY page that I haven't recently cleaned up and start at the bottom of the birth section and look at the linked articles for the first dozen or so non-athletes to see if there are reliable sources there?

You're clearly a solid contributor and I think if you see the mess that the "bluelink is good enough for DOY pages" practice has created, I think you might change your opinion. Please consider doing this. It would only take a few minutes. Toddst1 (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Toddst1, thanks for leaving a comment. I just did what you asked for the birth section.
I did May 4, a randomly chosen date, from year 1006 - 1994, and also checked whether the date has been reviewed earlier or not. In the birth section, I found only 1 mistake Alexander Benois (which I deleted), and 4 contents that I initially thought was not notable entries because the linked articles were poorly referenced but turns out they were just fine Thomas Kinsella (encyclopedic reference), Thomas Stuttaford (doctor society link), Darryl Hunt (musician) (google books), and Peter Gregg (racing driver) (motor sports hall of fame reference); all 4 turns to have good reference, which I fixed in each corresponding article, and not into the DOY. So I don't know what's the mess caused by "bluelink is good enough for DOY pages" practice.--Rochelimit (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, first, thank you for doing that but in less than a minute, I found these in May 4 , just going from 1994 to 1960:
None of these have their DOBs referenced. Toddst1 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'm with you on this one Toddst1. I did the same check briefly and most bio's of living persons do not provide a reference for the DOB stated. So from a WP:V point of view this is a problem that should be addressed by WP:WPBIO.
Although I still think that sourcing every list item in DOY is unmanageable I do see your point Toddst1. The question is how to handle existing and new entries. ALL of them would have to be checked which is a mammoth task, also given the number editors who are up for it. I could write a script that would weed out links to unreferenced and unnotable bio's (f.i. see this list). However, this would only apply to the section Births and Deaths. Unfortunately my time is limited the coming months but it may be something to (re)consider. I will pursue my point no further and will not be present at the Village pump. Mill 1 (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Dear Toddst1. Thanks for sharing the result of yours. This is what I did; my principle is to improve the reference in the main article, and not in the DOY. With the 6 entries you just listed, and after checking and ensuring their sources for hours, I decide to remove 1 entry (Andrew Denton) and leave the other 5. Here's the detail
  • Andrea Torres > Birthday only confirmed via journalism, albeit lots of it, it's a birthday. Source improved in main article. DOY entry untouched
  • Giovanni Mirabassi > Birthday confirmed via journalism. Source improved in main article. DOY entry untouched
  • Ana Gasteyer > Reference found at Moore's Address Directory of Celebrities (2004), main article improved. DOY entry untouched
  • Kate Garraway > Birthday confirmed via journalism. Main article improved.DOY entry untouched.
  • Jay Aston > Reference found at Encyclopedia of Pop Music. Main article improved. DOY entry untouched.
  • Andrew Denton > IMDB source said he was born on August 29, 1951; birthday removed in main article. DOY entry removed.
It was a very tedious work, it disturbed my usual routine for a couple of hours. I tagged BLP sources into the articles with only journalistic reference (even though it's just the birthday part, which I think not really relevant, since it's just an information on date and year, and not on gossips).
To ensure the DOY is properly filled, you've come up with a strategy of obliging people to add sources into new DOY entries so that they are worthy of DOY (notability and verifiability-wise), especially if they have just been removed from DOY. But Toddst1, do you actually think that referencing all line in DOY is the solution to reduce the burden of cleaning up the DOY, because I still don't see that. If finally a user finds a good reference and put it in the DOY, fat chance the user will add the same good reference into the main article; if this happens, should the reference in the DOY removed because now there are two same references in DOY and the main article? Isn't that a bit of a redundant? A script (as mentioned by Mill 1, thanks for sharing the work!) may solve the problem, but not manually deleting the entry and sending a talk page reminder "You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V" to people's talk page, with the potential of edit-warring with users (I see you had a couple of edit-wars in your history of maintaining the DOY with some pecky users).
In my opinion, you can still find a solution by doing what I did above! That is, checking the main article, find wrong entries (in this case, Andrew Denton was incorrectly referenced), delete the birthday in the main article, delete the DOY entry, done. Still the same burden of maintaining DOY, but no potential of edit-warring, nor adding reminder in people's talk page, and no manual of style compromised.
Thanks for sharing your point of view however, I can see a bit clearly the reasoning behind your proposal, even though I still see that there's actually a much simpler solution that doesn't compromise style, or opening potential of dispute with other users. I still want to bring this to village pump, but since I'm a bit tired of checking the 6 entries there, may be I'll do it next Tuesday or Friday...--Rochelimit (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
Compliance-wise, to users that are not very experienced with the nature of DOY, your solution may sound less complicated than the "exempt from WP:V" solution, because you just follow a rule already set in Wikipedia, easy, done, then leave the DOY issue to whoever dealing with it. However, for those experienced with the nature of DOY and actually involved in maintaining the DOY, the consequence of a messy DOY is very real and would just place another huge burden on managing the DOY (talk page reminder, edit-warring, inconsistent manual of style). This is why I respect comment from users like Deb, Mufka, etc more even than my own comment. The fact that there are still a bit of hesitant from these users with the new rule kind of validate my thought.--Rochelimit (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Public holidays in Indonesia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hatta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Naga morsarang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vihara Bahtera Bhakti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanbao (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

September 2018

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
 
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted, as you did at Palembang City Hall. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  TonyBallioni (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • I also went ahead and removed autopatrolled from this account because of the copyright issues. To be unblocked, you will need to explain Wikipedia's copyright policy in your own words, and explain how you will follow it in the future. You will need to convince another admin that you are no longer likely to violate the copyrights of others. Once you do that, any admin is free to unblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

 
This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Rochelimit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22555 was submitted on Sep 04, 2018 17:37:51. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Reply


 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rochelimit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In the past, I have made a couple of plagiarism that I was not aware of. Apparently changing the words and shuffling them in a sentence was not enough and still considered a copyvio. This happened in the early times of my early initial Wikipedia editing.

I was warned by a user during a WAM event of my misunderstanding of the concept of plagiarism and decided to follow his warning, which is to edit everything that I have added since the very first time I edit Wikipedia. It was a stressful condition because of the nature of the competition, the nature of the warn (in which I was accused of sockpuppetry first, and then followed by a copyvio warn), as well as November 2017 being the stressful month in my private life (had a tragedy). After the WAM event, I decided to go back to my usual relatively small edit in organizing H&O in the Days of the Year as well as a couple of editing mostly in my sandbox, as well as ensuring that I have learned very well how to avoid both plagiarism and copyvio.

The very last edit was to a wiki article: Palembang City Hall or Palembang Water Tower. It was a very careless one. Despite my commitment to reference-checking, the very last edit I did for that article on 4 September was solely because I was so moved and so eager to quickly re-edit the article Palembang Water Tower because just found out that the edit was created incorrectly by a non-Indonesian user (mistranslation of 'ledeng' to 'mayor'). It was so badly made, I decided to copy paste a note from my computer which is actually an edit I did a couple of years ago that was not thoroughly checked in reference. Because of the scarcity of the subject, I thought that the sources were all Dutch-language or Indonesian-language. I failed to realize that there is an English-language source in that article which has not been checked thoroughly of the copyvio. Unfortunately for me, this edit was detected by the user who warned me in November 2017 and decided to use this as a proof to block me indefinitely from Wikipedia.

I believe that I should be unblocked because I have made a commitment to check thoroughly the reference in the article, and this very last edit I did was my own downfall because of my carelessness. I am sorry that I have failed to realize this one and I promised that I will never repeat a careless editing in Wikipedia article without checking the reference ever again. This very last edit came because of my own emotion to correct hastily a poorly-translated Indonesian article which I found many times in Wikipedia.

My contributions in Wikipedia are for Indonesian vernacular architecture and anthropological subjects, as well as History of Batavia, Dutch East Indies. I also managed the H&O section, which was rampant with edits that don't follow the editing standards. I am one of the teams that keep the H&O section of the DOY from being too cluttered.

The block affects me because I have dedicated myself to check misinformation that is usually added to the Indonesian article because of the poor Indonesian-translated reference. The block also affects me because I am one of the H&O team in the DOY section which keeps the H&O section from being too cluttered because of the daily additions. In the past, I have created a rule of thumb in which the H&O section follow the editing standards, in which I kept in maintenance.

If I am unblocked, I promise I will be wiser not make any more careless editing even if I saw a badly-made Indonesian article. The Palembang City Hall edit I did is a bad example which I will not repeat again. Also, I will still do checking on my previous articles in the past 10 years, to ensure that the article is the best article that perhaps can be raised into "good article". In the past, I have created one "good article" 'Taman Sari (Yogyakarta)' which I think is a huge accomplishment for me. I wish that by improving my old article and rechecking, I may consider improving them even more by proposing them to a good article.

Wikipedia is a great means to enable me to spread the culture of Indonesia that is often overlooked by unsourced myths or legends about haunted stories. I hope that my unblock request will be considered and I hope that I will gladly follow a courteous guidance to improve myself in editing Wiki.

PS: If I am unable to reply quickly it's because I was busy.

Decline reason:

As you have been told, there is a Contributor copyright investigation that has been opened against you. You have created a huge amount of unnecessary work and caused harm to the free encyclopedia by violating a core policy of free content. At this point, I don't think I would trust you to edit anywhere; and would not recommend you are unblocked until you can identify all of the close paraphrasing in your edits, where they are based, and what should be removed to comply with our free content policies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Rochelimit, while it had nothing to do with the reason you were finally blocked, it does not look good in an unblock request when you engage in historical revisionism like I was warned by a user during [November] of my misunderstanding of the concept of plagiarism and decided to follow his warning (this actually happened in mid-December -- I was not aware of the scope of the problem until this), and you ignore the fact that your initial reaction to my warning you about clumsy copyediting (not copyvio, which I hadn't noticed at the time) and opening an SPI about the frankly super-suspicious activity on your articles (and yes, Bbb23 agreed that it did look like you were recruiting meatpuppets; he just didn't consider it a violation of policy under the circumstances[1][2]) was to add misplaced content tags to a bunch of my articles and pretend you were doing it in good faith.[3][4] If you are not going to apologize for your misconduct last November-December, then why would you bring it up (in which I was accused of sockpuppetry first, and then followed by a copyvio warn) when it wasn't why you were blocked? It looks like you are trying to place the blame for your plagiarizing text on other users. As for WAM, you should be extremely grateful to me for explicitly requesting you not be disqualified (it's probably the only reason you weren't), so your continuing to attack me nine months later in an unrelated unblock request is frankly shocking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
To any reviewing admin: My above comment is about stuff unrelated to the block that I don't feel it was appropriate for RL to mention in his appeal (essentially a blocked user using their talk page as a forum to attack me), but the reason I focused on that was because I was confident you would not unblock someone who was blocked for long-term copyvio issues just because they claimed it was a small, localized problem brought on by short-term overwork/stress. The above appeal doesn't address the copyright violation going back to at least 2013, and the bizarre statement I failed to realize that there is an English-language source in that article which has not been checked thoroughly of the copyvio completely denies responsibility for RL's own copy-pasting of at least two full sentences from English-language source he himself added. The original CCI case, with diffs going back to 2013, is here, and the report about the most recent copyvio, which led to this block, is here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
I have to agree that there were multiple problems of plagiarism that I did not realize in the past, probably even way back before 2013 during which my article writing skill was very bad, as English is not my mother language, as well as the new wiki rules that I have to learn. Copyvio (the way I shuffle words and change nouns), which turns out seen as plagiarism, may appear consistent during those early period because I have received none reminder no how to do a proper copy-editing. The fact that the articles I added to Wikipedia were scarce subjects (on Indonesian anthropology and vernacular architecture) may also contribute to the lack of reminder or patrolling on the way I contribute to the Wikpiedia. The end of 2017 is the first time I received such warning on copyvio (the way I shuffle words and change nouns) very thoroughly from the user as well as links which teach me to do a proper editing. The user decided to diligently trace my edit up to the very first time, which may contribute to the bad unwarned copyvio in my portfolio which I didn't even realized. It is very unfortunate that I failed to understand the best way to cite from sources during all those period. As I explained before, I planned not to do that anymore.
To redeem myself, following December 2017 I followed the user recommendation to reduce editing on main wiki article and start editing on sandbox more. On grammar, as per user recommendation (see my previous talk page) I decided to check everything in words for grammar. Also, I decided myself to use more Indonesian/Dutch source (maps, journal) and less English source to avoid my own tendency to do copyvio while learning the best way to cite English sources. Based on the user suggestion, I also slowly and gradually editing all my past articles up to the beginning, which I gladly do so. The user also recently (February 2018 if I'm not mistaken?) reminded me to remove copyvio even from my sandbox, which I did not even realize that there was a rule not to place copied source in wiki's sandbox (sometimes I did so because I thought no one would read my own sandbox and it's a sandbox, which is trial in nature). The very last edit on Palembang City Hall was a very big slip during my period of redemption, simply because I was so "eager/pushed/want to do quickly now" (I don't know the English word, Indonesian gemas) to correct that wiki article immediately because of how wrong it was, and as a result, failed to do thorough check as I explained on top.
Admin may check my past talk page that I'm always seeking for guidance from every users that tell me to improve the way I edit, and am willing to learn the way Wiki works. My own main page is filled with name wiki users, a kind of reminder for me that I have received help from them, on doing tables, on putting categories, etc. My past talk pages are filled with helps which I received from old users while I contribute to Wikipedia. One of those instant which I cherish the most is when a couple of users encouraged me to raise the article Taman Sari (Yogyakarta) into good article, which I think is quite an adventure for me given at that time I was extremely busy with my college study in Holland (around 2010 or 2011 if I'm not wrong). Admin may also check my past talk page that my use of English is very simple and short (because of the non-mother language issue). I also have the tendency to avoid bringing up conflicts at all cost. I try not to be abusive toward editor, always asking help, and always place civility and humility on top of bringing confrontation for the sake of correctness.
If the user felt hurt during the November-December event as the user mentioned and demand an apology, then I sincerely apologize for the November-December 2017 issue. Hijiri I am very sorry for my perceived lack of apology. Hijiri, if my previous apology (in talk page or any other ANI pages, which I forgot) seemingly seems unsincere, it is because of my own poor choice of words and I didn't mean that. My English is very simple and my grammar is very bad, and very often I have difficulty in understanding complex and twisted words and huge paragraph with links, which may cause misunderstanding and miscommunication because I have to read, click and learn everything at the same time, resulting in a very slow or a confused reaction on my part. I hope that we can put that unrelated issue back then into a closure and hope that I and you can contribute to Wikipedia by reminding each other to improve Wiki constructively. Again Hijiri, I apologize to you.
@TonyBallioni:, this is the first block that I received in Wiki, and so a new world for me, including the appeal for unblocking process. I try to learn the correct way the process of appeal, but may not be doing so correctly as this is, again, a very new territory. I would thoroughly appreciate if I were given a chance for another redemption so that I am able to contribute to Wikipedia. My cause in Wikipedia is sincere, that is to introduce the wonderful array of (forgotten) vernacular architecture of Indonesia, the amazing (and overlooked) crafts a result of the complex anthropology of Indonesia, as well as the wonderful (yet dilapidated) colonial architecture in my city. Again, I extremely apologize for the BIG slip that happened while I quickly editing Palembang City Hall and promised will not do hasty act like that ever again. I will also do a more thorough checking on all my past article, even more so than now, as a redemption.
Again very sorry if my choice of words is wrong or incorrect that may cause miscommunication.

--Rochelimit (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Jesus... there's so much wrong with the above I don't know where to begin...

  1. Our copyright policy is not a "new wiki rule". It is based on widely accepted standards of what constitutes plagiarism, which I was taught in (the Irish equivalent of) junior high school.
  2. "proper copy-editing" is not a policy requirement, and has nothing to do with the reason you were blocked. It is a rule of the Asian Month editathon and so is something for which I called you out once, ten months ago.
  3. Neither I nor, to the best of my knowledge, anyone else ever advised you to "reduce editing on main wiki article and start editing on sandbox more". You were advised to stay away from English Wikipedia altogether and limit yourself to Indonesian Wikipedia until your English was good enough to paraphrase without violating copyright; you ignored this advice.
  4. "I also slowly and gradually editing all my past articles up to the beginning" appears to be completely baseless. If you were actually removing plagiarism from your old articles, why does the text of your appeal claim (again) that it was only during November 2017 and on that one article last week?
  5. "Admin may also check my my use of English is very simple and short" is not an excuse for plagiarism. You received plenty of warnings and ignored all of them.
  6. "I try not to be abusive toward editor" is transparent lie. I might have wanted you blocked for your unprovoked, malicious harassment of me last December, but I held my tongue because I don't like drahma. To see you rewrite history like this while pretending to apologize bothers me personally, but it has nothing to do with your block, so why are you bringing it up?
  7. I didn't "demand an apology": I asked why you would bring up your harassment of me if it had nothing to do with your block and you weren't even doing it to apologize and present yourself as a collegial, big-hearted individual (which would not have led to an unblock anyway, but...).

Anyway, your "previous apology" didn't "seemingly seem unsincere": it simply didn't exist. And I don't care. I don't hold grudges, and don't give a damn that you never apologized. Your textual plagiarism has caused significant damage to the project, and everything from polite advice to stern warnings to "stop editing English Wikipedia" didn't work, so blocking was the only solution.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Dear reviewing admin, @TonyBallioni:
 
My digital sketch on Balinese house.
 
My digital sketch on Javanese house.
Regarding my edit, as you may see in my history edit, I always add references and web-archive everything because of how scarce some of the supporting documents for my articles are. Admin may also see that my last edit in the Palembang City Hall / Palembang Water Tower article was very unusual of me, in which I did not place any references in the article, which was solely because of my eagerness to change very quickly, which was very unfortunate as I forget about this and I regret this a lot because this very last (unusual) edit is the thing that got me banned. I hope my history edit, especially on referencing articles with template citations, will be taken into consideration to determine that I have no ill intention on doing copyvio in Wikipedia and have no ill intention on having continuous conflicts with Wiki users. The last edit was my one very-poor judgement and I promised that I will never do such ill action again.
My sole reason in Wikipedia is to contribute on Indonesian art and culture articles and that's all. I only have one account because that's all I need. I avoid drama and confrontation, I do not harass or scheming through other users, I collaborate with friendly users and contribute and/or improve existing articles; all of these can be seen in my talk page history/contributions from the beginning till the end. I have 1 good articles, and a couple of featured facts in Wiki's homepage. I contribute photographs of the country I've visited for Wikipedia (on arts and culture). I am able to draw graphics so I improved existing maps or introduce drawing freely and selflessly for Wikipedia (the Balinese and Javanese house attached is my pride). My weakness, obviously in misinterpreting plagiarism, I have to clearly address this. Since the end of 2017, I have learn to control and suppress the overly copy-editing work, as well as rechecking articles that I have introduced in the past. Please have a good faith on me because I have consider this ban as a lesson and will greatly appreciate if I can be given a chance to contribute again for Wikipedia, through graphics, photography, and articles on traditional arts.--Rochelimit (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Unblock request

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

Dear Ritchie333. Thank you for reviewing my unblock appeal. I will consider this as my learning experience.

Dear Boing!_said_Zebedee. Thank you for replying to my unblock ticket request system.

Dear TonyBallioni. I respected your decision on blocking me because of my many unwarned mistakes in the past. I hope I will be given another consideration to be able to edit in Wikipedia again but for now, I shall stay away from wiki editing and reflect on my way of editing. If I ever given a chance to return, I will be very grateful and will again check thoroughly the articles which I have added to Wikipedia for paraphrasings again.

I will appreciate if TonyBallioni can give comments on ways to mitigate my ban. Many thanks on your previous helps before.--Rochelimit (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I’m normally very open to removing my own blocks and working something out with the blocked user, but in this case I’d prefer if admins with fresh eyes handle the appeal (anyone is free to unblock you if they are convinced that the copyright issues will no longer be a problem.) Because you’ve not only been close paraphrasing print books but also been lifting sentences directly from them, this is a much more complex issue than most copyright blocks because of the difficulty finding the problems. I think in these cases it is better that you convince someone uninvolved that the issues are behind you rather than have me review it and unblock likely because I’m tired of the pings. Also, fixing your ping to Ritchie333. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the pings and thank you for the direction.
Dear Ritchie333 and Boing!_said_Zebedee, if I am given a chance to return, I would identify all of the close paraphrasings, where they are based, and removed them. This is very easy to do because I never forget to remove the references in all of my articles, so there's a very clear direction for improvement. I will first identify the paraphrasing as given in the Contributor Copyright Investigation, after that I will check the rest of my contributed article from the very beginning, which I can check through my created article list in my stats back to the very beginning.
I will be very grateful if I am given a chance to return, and will be happy to receive a close monitor or other kinds of proof of requests if needed. Please consider this appeal and trust me that I am willing to cooperate.
I will appreciate a comment from Boing! said Zebedee and Ritchie333 on my explanations. Thanks again Ritchie333 for taking time to give your previous insight.--Rochelimit (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Please stop pinging me - my only part in this was to tell you to make your appeal here and not via UTRS, and I have not otherwise looked at the case at all. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sorry... Thanks for clearing that up. I was not understand.--Rochelimit (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi TonyBallioni Boing!_said_Zebedee Ritchie333 Hijiri88, I'm obviously against copyright infringement. But I think we should give Rochelimit another go for the following reasons:

  • Rochelimit has made a lot of important contribution to Wikipedia on deserving topics that won't otherwise attract other editors' attention. We need coverage on these topics. We need more active Indonesian Wikipedians!
  • Copyright infringement is unfortunately very widely tolerated in Indonesia. The official website of the government of Jakarta, for example, lifts entire paragraphs from Adolf Heuken's books without quotation marks or even any acknowledgement. Rochelimit seems to have done the same, and in some cases with the same author. While this is unacceptable behaviour, we should have some cultural sensitivity and realize that in Indonesia, there are lower standards of respect for intellectual property. Let me stress once again that I don't condone copyright infringement on the basis of cultural sensitivity: all I'm saying is that we should take Indonesian circumstances into account in dealing with Rochelimit, who I'm convinced has learned an important lesson here, and will in future be a better Wikipedian.

ClaraElisaOng (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

As I said above, all I did was reject a WP:UTRS request as the editor still had access to this talk page for making an appeal. It was just a simple procedural action, and the block itself is nothing to do with me. If User:Rochelimit wants to be unblocked, they should make an unblock request here using the {{unblock}} template, and that will bring it to the attention of admins for review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I'll add that I've just gone back through this talk page and archives, and I see evidence of copyright violations going back a long time, with multiple warnings. Ignorance through cultural differences might have been a valid excuse in the beginning, but not for repeated violations after being warned about it multiple times. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Dear Boing! said Zebedee, I was not warned multiple times. The copyright infringement that I did in the past was not monitored and the first "multiple warnings" I received is a set of warnings at the end of 2017 by one user who just realized that all my introduced article far back to 2016, 2015 and so on contain copyvios, which I didn't realize as well (despite my complete referencing for the part which I have copyvio-ed). Turns out I misinterpret how plagiarism work as I thought that replacing words with synonyms is still considered as plagiarism. When I realize this, I promised to the user that I will fix things up in all my introduced article even far back to 2013, which I have done little by little, and very carefully. Some of the articles which I have fixed during the course of the end of 2017 up until my block were: Balinese traditional house, Pura Dalem Segara Madhu, Tiraz, Pasar Baru, Qa'a (room) (I think this is the last fix before my block).
All I was saying that I have learned my lesson and will continue the article fixing if I am given another chance to return to editing in Wiki. ClaraElisaOng, thank you very much for your explanation and for your consideration on the background culture of Indonesia. Of course, plagiarism is very wrong and I strive to do better than I have before if I am given another chance. I just don't know what to do anymore.--Rochelimit (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I believe Rochelimit when they said that they didn't understand the extent of paraphrasing required to avoid plagiarism. As an Indonesian myself, I'm aware that in Indonesia (sometimes even in an academic context) exchanging some words with synonyms might be considered enough paraphrasing. So, some leniency might be in order here. As a country, we don't exactly have the same kind of educational institutions or intellectual standards as more developed countries. So, it's a steeper learning curve for most Indonesians when they do choose to engage in an international field, such as Wikipedia.
Rochelimit has created many articles from a region of the world that doesn't get enough coverage on Wikipedia. Perhaps, RSL has been overly eager and has created too many articles with bad grammar, poor editing and even poorer referencing. But we need RSL's contribution. Indonesia is grossly underrepresented on Wikipedia for a country of its size and population.
I also just read the exchange between Hijiri88 and Rochelimit, and am shocked by RSL's immaturity. So, my support for their continued participation as a Wikipedian is a qualified one. I hope that should RSL be allowed to continue their Wikipedia career, they will display more maturity as an Indonesian Wikipedian: anda membawa nama baik bangsa Indonesia di Wikipedia. ClaraElisaOng (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
@ClaraElisaOng: Thank you for your ping. Have you read all the interactions TonyBallioni (talk · contribs), Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs), MER-C (talk · contribs) and I had with Rochelimit? He was given ample opportunity, over the course of almost a year, to learn about plagiarism, etc. I had a pretty good grasp on it in (the Irish equivalent of) junior high school, and I don't recall it being difficult to pick up; Rochelimit's user page says he is university-educated; it just doesn't make any sense that you could blame Rochelimit's failure to stop plagiarizing text on the state of the Indonesian education system. And Google Translate tells me that Indonesian Wikipedia actually has pretty much the same rules we do. Rochelimit's large number of articles created actually counts as a point against him, since it just creates more work for those cleaning them up; he didn't actually write most of them but rather copy-pasted their text, so it's not like he put a large amount of work into improving English Wikipedia's coverage of an underrepresented country and its culture. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • I haven't read all of the above, but I'll just state where I stand: copyright blocks are indefinite because they are competence blocks, and like all blocks, they are not punishment. Once a user can convince an uninvolved admin that they understand the copyright policy and will not violate it going forward, they can be unblocked. In this case, I don't mind any admin unblocking without consulting me provided that they are convinced that there will not be an ongoing risk of introducing copyrighted text to Wikipedia. If Rochelimit wants to be unblocked, they should make an unblock request and explain why this will no longer be an issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
I haven't read it all either, but I'd like to suggest that complete resolution of all outstanding copyvio issues should be a pre-condition to any unblock request. All past errors – copyvio, close-paraphrasing, whatever – can be identified here on this page until the CCI is complete. After that, an unblock request is I think likely to be much more favourably received. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
Hi Justlettersandnumbers Hijiri88 TonyBallioni Ritchie333 Thank you for your comments.
Hi Rochelimit, there's a possible way out of this mess. Justlettersandnumbers suggested that you identify and list all of your copyright infringements before proceeding with your unblock request. This might be a good opportunity to show the Wikipedia community your good faith, and for you to learn the extent of work needed to remedy copyright infringement.
Apart from copyright infringement, I also suggest that you slow down on Wikipedia. Perhaps, create fewer but higher quality articles in future. Focus on grammar and improving on your English. ClaraElisaOng (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
FTR, I'd have no issue with RL returning to the project, but not before he at the very least shows an understanding of textual copyright and preferably goes through all his past contributions and explains on this page what needs to be done with them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply


List of clean up checks

edit
Dear ClaraElisaOng Justlettersandnumbers. Thank you very much for your kind support and clear guidance.
Dear Boing!_said_Zebedee TonyBallioni and all. here is a list for my future clean up. The list below is my cleanup projects as identified in the CCI earlier as well as other articles which I suspected to contain copyvios. If it contains a checkmark, it means that a cleanup work has been done before the block (after the block, I cannot do anything, including cleaning up). with the list below, should I repost an unblock request or can this be considered as one part of the earlier unblock request? Sorry if my pings spamming everybody.
Of course, I will do checking on earlier articles not listed here as well to improve the content and hopefully elevate them to good article status. I have done this in the past for the article Taman Sari (Yogyakarta) with the help from a couple of experienced Wikipedians.--Rochelimit (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • FWIW, Rochelimit, I don't think it's enough just to list those articles where copyvio was already found and those other articles where you happen to have already done (some of?) the work to remove the copyvio. Frankly, this comes across more like the evasive attempts to cover your tracks that landed you in trouble in the first place. The full list of articles you created is here, and I think to those 210 should be added the 29 articles you've edited more than 20 times, here (I know there's probably some overlap). This is why I tried to tell you how serious this was: cleaning it up is an enormous task, and until you acknowledge the magnitude of the mess you've caused you're very unlikely to be unblocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Discussion at Talk:Sarah Azhari

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

 I invite you to please join the discussion at Talk:Sarah Azhari.

Hello, we are seeking help with the Sarah Azhari article, created in 2013 & recently the subject of a deletion proposal. At issue was whether or not the Indonesian language sources establish notability. I am inviting you to the discussion at Talk:Sarah Azhari#Help with Indonesian language sources because you are in the Category:User id-N & have a minimum of 1,000 edits across all Wikimedia projects.

I realize that some of you are very busy while others may no longer be editing. Nevertheless, I thought it wise to consult with you.

Thank your for the work that you do on Wiki[mp]edia! Peaceray (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rochelimit&oldid=1071288782"