User talk:Rochelimit/Archive 2

Address Collection

Congratulations! You have more than 4 accepted articles in Wikipedia Asian Month! Please submit your mailing address (not the email) via this google form. This form is only accessed by me and your username will not distribute to the local community to send postcards. All personal data will be destroyed immediately after postcards are sent. Please contact your local organizers if you have any question. Best, Addis Wang, sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

NITOUR building

Hi Rochelimit, Thanks for your attention. The source is the lost Fermont-Cuypers archive I did discover recently. I am writing a book now about the the works of Ed.Cuypers and Fermont-Cuypers between 1897-1927 in Indonesia and the works of the Fermont-Cuypers office realised between 1927-1957. The name of the building is not Singerbuilding but NITOUR. The opening was indeed in 1938. Others sources: Bataviaasch Nieuwsblad 27 juli 1934 Best Regards, Obbe Norbruis Amsterdam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obbe h. norbruis (talk • contribs) 16:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

• From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost

• News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?

• Interview: What is it like to edit Wikipedia when you're blind?

• In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more

• Featured content: One year ends, and another begins

• Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases

• Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new

• Technology report: Tech present, past, and future

• Recent research: Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women biographies; Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

• Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy

• Special report: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

• News and notes: Official WMF rebuke to Trump policy; WMF secures restricted funds

• In focus: WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause"

• WikiProject report: For the birds!

• Op-ed: How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't stick around

• In the media: Presidential politics, periodic table, and our periodic roundup of updates

• Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes

• Traffic report: Cool It Now

• Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles

• Forum: Productive collaboration around coordinated protest marches; Media and political personalities comment on Wikipedia at its 16th birthday celebration

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Wayang Kulit Indonesia a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Please use the directions at WP:RM#CM for a move. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rochelimit. Let's continue the conversation here. You can reply here and I can reply as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a slight problem in the page which would require a merge of history and then a move. It will take some time to fix though as I need to first look at how to do the histmerge and move and then request an admin to do it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, would be nice to be helped on moving the page Wayang Kulit Indonesia into its proper name, just Wayang kulit. I'm planning to synchronize the page with the id.wiki article for wayang kulit, which is readily available.--Rochelimit (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

• From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

• Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education

• Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

• In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia

• Gallery: A Met montage

• Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

• Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer

• Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

• Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

• Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of colonial buildings in Medan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Garden city. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

reflist|4

Hi. I'm just letting you know that reflist|2, 3, and 4 are deprecated per Template:Reflist#Columns.

• reflist|20em is its equivalent
• reflist|30em does 3 columns
• reflist|35em doe 2 columns.

thanks --Jennica✿ / ^talk 09:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Subdistricts of Aceh

added links pointing to Bandar, Mane, Jaya, Darussalam, Darul Aman, Sawang and Sakti

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Balinese architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Padmasana. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

• From the editors: Signpost status: On reserve power, help wanted!

• News and notes: Global Elections

• Arbitration report: Cases closed in the Pacific and with Magioladitis

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's lead sentence problem

• Featured content: Three months in the land of the featured

• In the media: Did Wikipedia just assume Garfield's gender?

• Recent research: Wikipedia bot wars capture the imagination of the popular press

• Technology report: Tech news catch-up

• Traffic report: Film on Top: Sampling the weekly top 10

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

• News and notes: French chapter woes, new affiliates and more WMF team changes

• Featured content: Spectacular animals, Pine Trees screens, and more

• In the media: Concern about access and fairness, Foundation expenditures, and relationship to real-world politics and commerce

• Recent research: The chilling effect of surveillance on Wikipedia readers

• Op-ed: Why Task Forces are Dying in 2017

• Gallery: A mix of patterns

• Humour: The Infobox Game

• Traffic report: Film, television and Internet phenomena reign with some room left over for America's birthday

• Technology report: New features in development; more breaking changes for scripts

• Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 3 wrap-up

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

• News and notes: Non-English special edition! 99% no news about English-based wiki communities!

• Recent research: Wikipedia can increase local tourism by +9%; predicting article quality with deep learning; recent behavior predicts quality

• WikiProject report: Comic relief

• In the media: Wikipedia used to judge death penalty, arms smuggling, Indonesian governance, and HOTTEST celebrity

• Traffic report: Swedish countess tops the list

• Blog: Canadian Supreme Court rules against Google in favor of worldwide court orders

• Special report: Sharing Wikipedia offline medical information in the Dominican Republic

• Featured content: Everywhere in the lead

• Technology report: Introducing TechCom

• Humour: WWASOHs and ETCSSs

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

• From the editors: What happened at Wikimania?

• News and notes: Basselpedia; WMF Board of Trustees appointments

• Featured content: Warfighters and their tools or trees and butterflies

• Traffic report: A fortnight of conflicts

• Special report: Biomedical content, and some thoughts on its future

• Recent research: Discussion summarization; Twitter bots tracking government edits; extracting trivia from Wikipedia

• In the media: Google's Ideological Echo Chamber; What makes someone successful?

• WikiProject report: WikiProject YouTube

• Technology report: Latest tech news

• Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 4 wrap-up

• Humour: Bots

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

• News and notes: Chapter updates; ACTRIAL

• In the media: Monkey settlement; Wikipedia used to give AI context clues

• Humour: Chickenz

• Recent research: Wikipedia articles vs. concepts; Wikipedia usage in Europe

• Technology report: Flow restarted; Wikidata connection notifications

• Gallery: Chicken mania

• Special report: Two steps forward, one step backward: The Sustainability Initiative

• Traffic report: Fights and frights

• Featured content: Flying high

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

• News and notes: Money! WMF fundraising, Wikimedia strategy, WMF new office!

• Featured content: Don, Marcel, Emily, Jessica and other notables

• Humour: Guys named Ralph

• In focus: Offline Wikipedia developed at OFF.NETWORK Content Hackathon

• Blog: The future of offline access to Wikipedia: The Kiwix example

• In the media: Facebook and poetry

• Special report: Working with GLAMs in the UK

• Traffic report: Death, disaster, and entertainment

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month 2017: Invitation to Participate

Hello! Last year, you signed up to participate in Wikipedia Asian Month (WAM) 2016 on the English Wikipedia. The event was an international success, with hundreds of editors creating thousands of articles on Asian topics across dozens of different language versions of Wikipedia.

I'd like to invite you to join us for Wikipedia Asian Month 2017, which once again lasts through the month of November. The goal is for users to create new articles on Asian-related content, each at least 3,000 bytes and 300 words in length. Editors who create at least four articles will receive a Wikipedia Asian Month postcard!

Also be sure to check out the Wikipedia Asian Art Month affiliate event - creating articles on Asian art topics can get you a Metropolitan Museum of Art postcard!

If you're interested, please sign up here for the English Wikipedia. If you are interested in also working on other language editions of Wikipedia, please visit the meta page to see other participating projects. If you have any questions, please visit our talk page.

Thank you!

- User:SuperHamster and User:Titodutta on behalf of The English Wikipedia WAM Team

This will be the last message you receive from the English Wikipedia WAM team for being a 2016 participant. If you sign up for WAM 2017, you will continue receiving periodic updates on the 2017 event.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For yours efforts in creating articles related to Architecture IM3847 (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Indonesian ceremonial bronze axes) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Indonesian ceremonial bronze axes, Rochelimit!

Wikipedia editor Insertcleverphrasehere just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice new article. A good candidate to take to DYK!

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! So happy with the kind words :) @Insertcleverphrasehere: --Rochelimit (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: "ask someone else to do it"

When I wrote this, I didn't mean for you to get your friends off-wiki to come and help you copy-edit, which it seems quite likely you did given that three new accounts showed up and started proof-reading your work within 24 hours of me writing that edit summary. (This is also suspect, but took place before that edit summary so is probably unrelated.)

Please use on-wiki means like the Guild of Copy Editors, as it is more transparent; asking off-wiki friends and relatives to help you with on-wiki problems gives the appearance of meat-puppetry and is generally discouraged by the community. If you were only using English Wikipedia for WAM and were only trying to hit the four-article postcard mark that would be one thing (full disclosure: this was exactly what I did last year on French Wikipedia; I asked my mother, a French teacher, to look over my work, but explicitly told her not to edit the articles directly), but if you are trying to get the "prize" for the most articles created, and give the impression of engaging in off-wiki canvassing to do it, that can be problematic.

I'm messaging you here rather than opening an SPI because I genuinely believe this was a good-faith misunderstanding, and would appreciate your recognizing that this is not a personal attack or the like, but sincere advice (I say this because roughly 30% of the time I offer such advice it gets taken the wrong way).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I didn't ask three "friends" to proof read. Just ask them, have no idea who they are but they're certainly very helpful (I better thank them now). Maybe they appear because of your tags(?) so I thank you for your reminders. After all the spirit of Wikipedia is to improve a work together in a good, proactive, friendly, and helping community. I truly appreciate all your reviews, although some of your words can be a little hurtful (yes I read them). A little kinder words should do the trick (and should certainly help reduce that roughly 30% of yours)--Rochelimit (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Them appearing on the articles because I tagged the articles would make sense, if they had prior edit histories and were regular Wikipedia copy editors, but they aren't. They are all brand new accounts -- so new that as of my writing the above they didn't even have user talk pages. I'll take your word that you don't know them, but I will not apologize for being suspicious because ... well, most good-faith Wikipedians would be given the suspicious circumstances.

I apologize if my words were hurtful. The reason parameters in my maintenance tags were meant, as something to appear in Wikipedia's voice in the main space, to be as neutral as possible, so I guess you're talking about edit summaries? Don't blank maintenance tags and you can avoid people reverting you with edit summaries like "Stop it". I have no idea what you mean by "should certainly help reduce that roughly 30% of yours".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You are allowed to be suspicious. However I recommend to have good faith because those assumptions of "3 friends" or "ask someone else", plus making that assumption as a title in my talkpage, what the..!? *head smack.--Rochelimit (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, assuming the above is a good-faith misunderstanding and not your deliberately feigning ignorance for whatever reason, your English is apparently not as good as I initially thought. The title of this thread is a quotation from my edit summary, and what I meant was that even though I had told you to "ask someone else" to do the copy-editing, I had meant for you to ask someone else on-wiki. There's no "assumption" of bad faith here -- I ask you to find someone else to do the copy-editing, and then within 24 hours three separate new accounts mysteriously show up and start working on your articles: most Wikipedians who notice somehing like that would immediately open an SPI, but I actually took the friendlier approach of asking you directly and taking your word for it when you said it was just a string of bizarre coincidences. Note that even though I said I am willing to take your qord for it in the spirit of camaraderie, most CU-enabled users would readily accept a request to check if you and those other four accounts geolocate to the same region if I presented the above evidence to them, so if I were you I wouldn't push my patience with sarcastic attacks like the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Oh, since your grammar is much better. Maybe you could help me please? :) --Rochelimit (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I might as well ask you why aren't helping me do better than you in the WAM editathon.

Your being from an Asian country gives you an inherent advantage when it comes to shoehorning articles about your own culture into the WAM parameters, with my only advantage being that I'm a native English speaker. Would I be right in assuming none of your articles would qualify if you submitted them in your native language? The requirements that articles be properly copyedited and not be machine-translated assume people will do what you are doing and write articles on their own cultures in foreign languages, so I have no problem with what you are doing in theory, but you've got to be willing to do the leg-work yourself.

It's clear that, unlike some editors, you are at least capable of doing said leg-work, since most of the grammatical/spelling/other errors I've noticed are things you got right elsewhere. So your not doing so makes it really look like you are sacrificing quality (even the minimal quality standards of the WAM rules) in favour of quantity, which gives you an unfair advantage over those of us who aim for both.

All that being said, I'd be happy to copy-edit your articles once the editathon has ended and it no longer runs counter to my interests to fix them.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I asked because seems like you have the time and speed (since you are able to investigate history of others' articles and all) unlike me who is really busy with my 8-to-6 routine like seriously busy these days plus have to slowly switch to English mode at night to wrote articles, but noted.--Rochelimit (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't have that much free time. I set aside a certain amount of time to building Wikipedia, and preemptively girded myself for spending more time on it this month because of WAM. And regardless of the month I'd much rather spend my time writing articles than dealing with drahms like this, so I would like to politely ask you, one more time, to stop removing maintenance templates (or the "reason=" parameters thereof) and stop submitting articles to WAM that contain very obvious grammatical errors that you clearly know are grammatical errors and only made them because you were rushing and being sloppy. As I said above, I'll happily help you fix the problems with the articles once I don't have to worry about my copy-editing work inadvertently helping you steal the top spot in the WAM rankings from me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Noted and noted.--Rochelimit (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

blacks

they arent human — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:200:8F97:D97B:27EF:F1D0:8295 (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Tajuddin Millatmal

Dr Tajuddin Millatmal was born in Nangarhar, Afghanistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amins s (talk • contribs) 20:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yOU ARE THE STUPID pERSON I HAVE EVR MET — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.72.2 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

WHY I DIE

gyfrsbdilcreyigx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.71.142 (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Pisau raut) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Pisau raut, Rochelimit!

Wikipedia editor TonyBallioni just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good article, consider nominating it to appear on the main page at WP:DYK.

To reply, leave a comment on TonyBallioni's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

TonyBallioni (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Rochelimit, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

tava mama

tau galva sparde manes ten nebuvo as teve suradau ir supisau — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.57.170.171 (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Qa'a (room)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Qa'a (room), Rochelimit!

Wikipedia editor SamHolt6 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Article reviewed, very well done.

To reply, leave a comment on SamHolt6's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SamHolt6 (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

• News and notes: Cons, cons, cons

• Arbitration report: Administrator desysoped; How to deal with crosswiki issues; Mister Wiki case likely

• Technology report: Searching and surveying

• Interview: A featured article centurion

• WikiProject report: Recommendations for WikiProjects

• In the media: Open knowledge platform as a media institution

• Traffic report: Strange and inappropriate

• Featured content: We will remember them

• Recent research: Who wrote this? New dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text

• Humour: Good faith (but still incomprehensible)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

WP:ORDER

Hello, how are you? Per [{WP:ORDER]], "See also" comes above "References", perhaps you may have a look. Please let me know if you have question(s). --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Titodutta: Very clear. Thanks for explaining!--Rochelimit (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability

Hey, I was just looking over a few of your articles, and I noticed some serious problems with Ayudha katti, including text lifted straight from an antique collector's website, and said content falsely attributed to a different source.

Now, the former problem is generally treated as the more serious on Wikipedia (it can lead to whole articles being deleted), and definitely needs to be addressed, but it's the latter that I'm a little more concerned about here. I've encountered a lot of new editors who have trouble grasping that it is problematic to attribute content to the wrong source as long as it can be attributed to some source, so I came here to ask you if you understand this principle.

Do you?

Additionally, the only reason I was able to identify this problem was because this one article happens to be heavily reliant on a free online source that was linked to from the article, but most of the articles I've read are based on offline sources to which I don't have access, and many of them are in Dutch (a language in which I am not proficient enough to falsify encyclopedic content) or Indonesian (a language about which I know nothing). Providing accurate translations of factual claims from foreign-language sources is not a copyright violation if you cite those sources (they own the words, but you are not stealing their words), but if you cite the wrong sources, as you did here, that is a problem. I would ask that you go back and check that your offline sources actually verify the content attributed to them inline, rather than most of the content being in some way verified by at least one of the sources cited somewhere in the article.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning. I'll check it in 13 hours time, Monday's coming.--Rochelimit (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Rochelimit, I don't want you to go around following my edits and revenge-tagging articles I write, but what I really don't want is to have to continue going around tagging your articles as containing plagiarized text, OR, etc. This should not have happened after I had already informed you of the above. I implore you to familiarize yourself with our content policies. I am seriously considering requesting Dutch- and Indonesian-proficient Wikipedians check the rest of your articles for unverifiable content and plagiarism. One gentle notification should have been enough for someone who has been here as long as you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, you need to stop taking sources that say "This particular example of X includes Y" and extrapolate from that that "Sometimes, Xes include Y". This is WP:OR, and it is unacceptable for you to engage in it as you did in Naga morsarang, Bhoma, and possibly others. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rochelimit. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

First sockpuppetry accusation wth

I feel so upset. This is not the Wikipedia I know. This is tackling each other in an uncollaborative manner. This is a bad faith. Wikipedia should all about collaborative improvement of articles, and not about pinpointing and highlghting mistakes.--Rochelimit (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what the second half of the above is referring to, but for what it's worth, I said you were either socking or getting meatpuppets to help you get the top spot in the WAM editathon. This is the same thing I said three weeks ago, so whatever it is it's not your first (that would have been when I did the same thing last month).

All that said, can you give me any hints on who you think might be trying to set you up? I don't think you would have created more sock accounts while the SPI was open; you'd need to be a complete moron to do that. On this talk page I see one racist troll, one troll who showed up just to insult you, and two or three more posting apparently nonsense messages, one in a language your user page doesn't imply you know.

Any idea who they might be?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Webecoolalasdair sockpuppeting

I have recently been accused of some kind of crime called sockpuppeting, of which I have no idea what it is. But on the 3rd I made my first account on Wikipedia, with the hopes and dreams of making it better, since I know countless individuals who give Wikipedia a bad reputation for being inaccurate and unreliable. Shortly after I built my account, Wikipedia invited me to edit an article with possible typographical errors. It was an article on a magic book used by Indonesian Hindu priests to curse and heal people. Sure enough, there were a couple of errors, which I fixed, and then felt proud of myself for contributing something to the world for the first time. Then one day after I make my account, I get accused of this strange crime. I feel hurt by this and feel that it goes against my first amendment rights against libel (which is a legit crime) and have grounds for a suit. These accusations are completely false and I have no reason to believe I could be involved in such a conspiracy as described in this investigation. If this is the real Wikipedia, it is not the one portrayed on the internet, where you can safely edit articles. If this rant gets me blocked, so be it. But I have spoken my honest mind, and I am deeply hurt and feel it is a real injustice to be accused like this. Please express your opinion Rochelimit.

I have been conducting extensive research on one of my passions (earthquakes) and intend to drop three articles on recent earthquakes in western Nevada, Delaware, and Montana. I am sad to admit, but I will probably miss a requirement in posting an article, probably in referencing because the requirements do not seem totally clear to new users like me who want to contribute, but are not super sure about the implicit rules. I hope you understand. Thank you.Webecoolalasdair (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webecoolalasdair (talk • contribs) 21:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Webecoolalasdair: You should retract the content of the seventh sentence of the above comment, preferably by placing <s> before it and </s> after (which will do this). Please read WP:NLT for more information.

Rochelimit: It would be really nice if you would delete the whole comment and leave a warning against posting harassing or offensive messages like the above, rather than reverting attempts by others to remove them.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Webecoolalasdair: What do you mean by "Shortly after I built my account, Wikipedia invited me to edit an article with possible typographical errors"? How did Wikipedia do that?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I have just struck the borderline legal threat by Webecoolalasdair. The user tried to simply remove it without comment. I reverted because they can't remove part of a post to which there have been responses. However, in all fairness, I'm assuming it was a new user's attempt to retract the remark. Hence, my striking and this comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Webecoolalasdair (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)== Sock puppetry continued ==

I am making a new article only because I have not yet figured out how to comment on other people's comments yet- after all I am a new user. I did retract the seventh sentence of the first paragraph since I was not previously aware of the legal threats rule (thank you Hijiri 88). (update. I thought I did but it is still there. Help!) Ok I get it lol maybe I was overreacting a little, but the accusation came within 12 hours of making my account, which left me stunned. I do not know if I am getting blocked because of this whole sock puppetry thing, but getting caught up in this whole mess is definitely unnerving. What is sock puppetry btw I'd really like to know. However this new "invitation" issue needs explaining. So after I made my account, the first notification I got came within seconds of creation and said that "It is time to edit your first article." or something along that line. The article I edited was the Pustaha article, which was about an Indonesian Hindu book of magic. That is all I meant for the invitation. If Indonesian articles are some part of some kind of bigger SPA, I am sure I am not involved. I do not think it a big deal to me, but just thought I'd clarify. Again I am a new user so I still do not know all the features and rules of Wikipedia yet, just throwing that out there, in case there is something else I did or said that I do not know about that is controversial. I hope this can clear everything up. I do not like to make trouble, only provide information to the world about science and stuff (if you guys want to read my user page, that would be AMAZING) And, User Bbb23, this is your answer. I do not like to leave people in the dark and will explain a situation as best as I can. Thank you, and with sincerity and apologetics, I will try to resolve these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webecoolalasdair (talk • contribs) 01:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Webecoolalasdair: It's been so long since I created an account, I was unaware of that notification. Maybe it pops up for every account creation, even though it doesn't appear on a Wikipedia page. It does seem curious, though, why you would pick that particular article as it was only created on November 5 and is a little known topic, at least to most people. Socking is two or more accounts operated by one person in a disruptive fashion. That's a bit of an oversimplication of the policy, which you can read in full at WP:SOCK. Your account was alleged to be operated by Rochelimit. I thought there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate socking, so I closed the report without action. Hope that helps a little bit. If you intend to stick around, btw, please learn to WP:SIGN your posts on Talk pages. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Bbb23 it was a notification, albeit a random article possibly pulled out a bucket. I apologize for all the confusion earlier. I have stuff to share with the world, so getting caught up with this "illegal" socking stuff (I have no better term) seemed real bad. I was just frustrated that within 24 hours of creating an account I get accused, then I get jumped on for being that frustrated, which frustrated me more, and the rest of this mess is history, I hope you understand. Also would I sue anyone? Very highly unlikely. I wanted to put a point across that accusing people like that, I felt at the time, may have been considered libel, as I did feel that I was falsely accused. I didn't know about the ramifications of legal issues, thanks again for bringing that up.

Also, I understand that you are an admin, is that correct? If so, I further apologize for taking up so much of the time you could have spent exploring the world on Wikipedia, or whatever it is admins do (I honestly have no idea). Also, I don't know what the rules are about this, but if you review my future articles, could you tell me what's wrong with the article instead of deleting it or before you delete it? Because I am sure I will be making mistakes when I start out. Also, how do I build a userpage that looks as awesome as you guyses?Webecoolalasdair (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Webecoolalasdair: For what it's worth, I apologize for any offense/distress I caused by naming you in that sockpuppet investigation. I see see such processes as standard procedures that are done all the time on here for a variety of reasons, but I can understand it must be intimidating for a legitimately new user.

Thank you for retracting that part of your comment above, anyway.

Also, I hope you don't mind, but I've removed the heading from this section, as it looked like you added it by accident. Normally if you respond to another editor's comment, you do not open a new section. Once again, apologies for how incomprehensible a lot of stuff around here can seem to newcomers. The majority of the people running things have ... not been here quite as long as I have, but long enough that everything seems "natural" to them.

Even though even experienced editors can make mistakes. Honestly, at this point I'm thinking that what probably happened was that when you creater your account you received a notification directing you to improve a random article out of the articles that had recently been tagged as having problems, which is problematic for a bunch of reasons that aren't your fault and I intend to get to the bottom of it if that is what is happening. One of the problems is that when a new account shows up on an article that has just been tagged, it looks likethat account was created by someone who was already editing the article beforehand. This is what led me to name you in the recently-closed sockpuppet investigation.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Webecoolalasdair: please don't be discouraged to edit in Wikipedia. Sometimes you get crazy accusation cases like what I just had but just focus on what you love. If you are good (which most Wikipedians are) you'll do good. If you have questions please ask. :)--Rochelimit (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Rochelimit, please drop it already. Other users, who had nothing to do with WAM, shared my suspicions, so there was nothing "crazy" about them, and if you question other users' mental states again you can expect to be reported to the admin corps. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Weird English WAM 2017

There's definitely a weird thing going on specifically in the English WAM 2017. Be it a developed bot, or other kinds of mechanism, should be fine with me as long as it improves Wiki. Kinda exhausting though with all the following unnecessary dramas.--Rochelimit (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Rochelimit, please drop it already. Other users, who had nothing to do with WAM, shared my suspicions, so there was nothing "crazy" about them, and if you question other users' mental states again you can expect to be reported to the admin corps. And if you have been ignoring the rules of WAM, which require proper copy editing, until someone tags your articles, that's no one's fault but your own. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that you may be talking about one of the many weird glitches in the system. In future, please refrain from making repeated, unjustified accusations of bad faith, as it makes your other comments more difficult to read in good faith. Everything I have stricken above would have made perfect sense in response to most of your recent remarks directed at me, just possibly not the above one that I now suspect, based on external factors, was not about me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure. And for you, in the future, please refrain from jumping to conclusions too quickly. Try to be wiser in your use of words because Wikipedia is used internationally by people from different cultures from countries you probably will never visit. You might come up as attacking if you're not careful with how you quote your words. I believe in kindness and good karma, you probably should. Perhaps then people will stop thinking that you're attacking or hurting or inciting something, which I believe you don't.--Rochelimit (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Meh.

"jumping to conclusions too quickly" is not what I did, but explaining why would make this look belligerent, so collapsing to make sure no one takes this as the "main point" of my reply.

I didn't jump to any quick conclusions: I carefully analyzed a problem, and several other highly experienced users (including on SPI clerk and one CU-enabled admin) agreed with me, but no one was blocked because (even if my conclusion was correct) neither you nor any of the other accounts would have violated a policy or guideline, just inappropriately circumvented the rules of an informal editathon. And (apparently?) CU is only performed when someone is going to get blocked if it comes up positive, which was never going to be the case with you (and I was explicit that that wasn't what I expected or wanted).

But that's all water under the bridge. Let's both do our best in next year's WAM as well! (Although if Women In Red is on again I might prioritize that one instead anyway.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Webecoolalasdair sockpuppeting

Look, I know this isn't the way to comment but until I find out another way, I am liable to stick with this. Help lol. Also, Hijiri 88, thanks for going out of your way and explaining all of this for me it's been a great help. Second, I did change my username because it sees a bit too revealing. Thank you for all you have done. My apologies for taking this so personally and screwing us all over with two whole days of time that could have been used a lot wiser. Weebeecool (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weebeecool (talk • contribs) 01:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Weebeecool: In the future, you should create your own subject on your own talkpage instead of here (it's mine! lol). Also don't forget to sign your name using four tildes (~~~~), which should produce your username and the date after your post automatically. You can also ping another user by typing {{ping|xxxxxxx}}, replace the x with the user's name. If you ping them in your own talkpage, they will receive notification, so they will check yours.--Rochelimit (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Weebeecool: Oh yeah, please post that earthquake articles you are planning to add into Wiki, preferably with photos!--Rochelimit (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Senen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bantenese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop hounding me

I would use Template:Uw-harass3 here (your recent behaviour, which includes posting polemics about me on your talk page, repeatedly impugning my good faith, and going around placing unnecessary maintenance tags on more than a half-dozen articles I wrote, definitely warrants it), but I'm a big believer in WP:DTTR.

Please stop hounding me. It would be one thing if I was being a "sore loser" and going around tagging yoir articles because you got the top spot in WAM this year (I don't actually care enough about the contest to do that anyway, but at least if I did one might be expected to understand my motivations), but you did get the top spot, so what motivation you could possibly have to start hounding the user who came in second is beyond me.

Your recent behaviour is simply unacceptable, and if I asked on ANI for you to be blocked you probably would be. Give me your word that you will drop this hounding campaign, and I will not do that. Also pinging User:Bbb23, who notified you of the SPI but apparently didn't think to remind you that SPI is a normal Wikipedia process and I had reasonable, good-faith reasons for doing what I did (I don't blame him -- that's not something he should have to remind people of), and User:Titodutta, who first brought up the "issue" of a number of my articles only including inline citations of one source (which is better than most articles on classical Japanese literature, which cite no sources) and alluded to Template:One source, which is clearly what gave you the idea to make your most recent string of edits. Again, neither of them can be blamed for where you went with the things they wrote or did not write, and I don't want to blame them: it would just be helpful if they would help me remind you that your last nine edits are not conducive to a collaborative encyclopedia.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi @Hijiri88:. I'm sorry if you felt attacked or hounded, but I'm just merely tagging Textual tradition of The Tale of Genji because I am curious what's the meaning of the 尋求所々、雖見合諸本、猶狼藉未散不審 note. It would be nice if you could add at least do the translation, given you are fluent in your Nihongo. As for the other articles, there's no harm in adding "one source" tag. Because this reminder will invite people to fix the article for the better. Besides, the article is not "your" article, but it's "our" article. Tag like this will actually improve the article, like when you tag the Indonesian articles I introduced, which results in a wave of new usernames fixing and improving the articles.--Rochelimit (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The content of that quotation, which appears in a footnote, is clearly elaborated on in the article text to which the footnote is attached. Your not having noticed this makes it doubly clear that you did not read through the article and decide that it had a serious problem that merited tagging. In fact, a closer reading would have told you that the quotation was not in Japanese, but Chinese (meaning the tag you added contained misleading information about the topic of the article).

Anyway, I know it's not "my article", and if I used that kind of language above or elsewhere (outside of scare-quotes), I meant it merely as shorthand for "an article I created and to which I am the only significant contributor", as well as to draw attention to the fact that you didn't have an interest in Japanese Textkritik, happen across one of our articles and figure it had a problem that needed tagging -- you went after that article specifically because it was written by me.

Anyway, your tag did not improve the article: a direct translation of a footnoted quotation whose content is already elaborated on inline would be unnecessary and redundant at best, and your tag directly claiming the quotation was (a) a part of the text of our article rather than a quotation from a medieval primary source and (b) written in Japanese, certainly did not improve the article. And trying to attract "a wave of new [users]" who are unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines, let alone with complex technical issues related to that particular article's subject-matter, is anything but helpful, even if that was what you were trying to do.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you apologize for adding a "needs translation" tag to the article when, had you actually read the text you tagged, it would have been obvious that no further translation was needed? Also, please apologize for adding the unsourced claim that classical Chinese text was "Japanese" to the article. This behaviour approaches vandalism in its disruptiveness: the only difference is that while vandalism is motivated by a desire to disrupt Wikipedia in general, what you did was motivated by a desire to disrupt articles that were written by me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• There's a lot of articles in Wikipedia with no sources whatsoever. So you should not be worry or feel harassed with the introduced tags.:) Have a good faith.--Rochelimit (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, so why don't you tag those articles as needing at least one source? The tag you added to the articles I wrote that only cited the NKBD exists because A single source is usually less than ideal, because a single source may be inaccurate or biased. Without other sources for corroboration, accuracy or neutrality may be suspect. By finding multiple independent sources, the reliability of the encyclopedia is improved. Did any of those articles have apparent problems with bias or accuracy? Neutrality? I had already explained on my talk page, in a comment you were clearly at least aware of, that these are not really concerns with the NKBD entries, which were each written by one (or at most three or four) authors -- who were generally the most venerable experts on the relevant topics in the world at the time they were commissioned to write the articles -- but were edited by third parties. And none of those topics are even subject to a significant amount of controversy to begin with. The documentation for the template you used explicitly told you Citing only one source is not a violation of any policy. Consider not adding this tag to ... articles that have no apparent problems with verifiability and neutrality. You clearly did not consider this, and I don't think you will be able to answer my above requests for elaboration on the accuracy or neutrality issues you found in the articles. I can assume good faith to a point, but you placed an accuracy/neutrality tag to no less than seven articles in the space of nine minutes, and I highly doubt you even read a single one of them in that time -- you definitely didn't read Textual tradition of The Tale of Genji -- so what motivation could you have possibly had but to hound me? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• And nope, I'm not reading any Titodutta to inspire me to tag your introduced articles. I'm actually reading all the introduced articles in WAM 2017 since yesterday, just for the sake of reading it.--Rochelimit (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It's probably not worth asking, since I know you are only going to lie again and claim it's "just a coincidence" as you have been doing for the last several weeks, but are you going to try to explain how I'm actually reading all the introduced articles in WAM 2017 since yesterday, just for the sake of reading it can square with the fact that you edited twenty of my WAM 2017 articles (beginning three days before you wrote the above, not "since yesterday") and have otherwise not edited anyone's WAM entries but your own in the past week? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Strange coincidences are just swarming around you, aren't they? You are entitled to read my talk page, and even to lie and say you weren't reading my talk page, but it really makes it difficult to take your word for it when you do this time after time after time. I'm not the one impugning your good faith here -- you're doing that yourself with these constant claims that "it's just a coincidence that a bunch of accounts showed up after you told me to get other people to copy-edit my articles" and "it's just a coincidence that someone posted on your talk page that your articles could theoretically be hit with a one-source tag and then three days later I do just that". No one actually believed you last time (Bbb23 turned down the CU request because your obvious meatpuppets were not actually violating policy) and I highly doubt anyone would believe the above outlandish claim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, the above was not helpful. I don't for a second believe the claim that "it was just a coincidence", but even if it was just a coincidence that doesn't make the hounding or the insertion of inaccurate information into the articles any less disruptive, and honestly I'd rather stay focused on content even if you would not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Noted--Rochelimit (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So ... are you saying you will stop hounding me? Your contribs since writing the above don't seem to be hounding, but your replying to my request for your word that you will stop being a one-word "Noted" is not itself promising, given how you had already been issuing vague, diplomatic "Sure"s when I made similar requests that you drop your revenge-quest against me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, for whatever reason I didn't notice these until just now, and so didn't bring up the suspicious timing of your edits since it appeared you had logged in several times in the three days between when User:Titodutta messaged me about "one source" and you started mass-tagging my WAM articles. But actually the time gap was barely two hours.[1][2]

Please retract your above obvious lie that you were not monitoring my talk page and did not get the idea of mass-tagging my articles from that discussion. Your monitoring my talk page actually makes your mass-tagging even worse, since it means you definitely knew the tags would be inappropriate before you added them, as you had already read my response to Titodutta.

Apologize for your hounding, promise never to do such a thing to me or any other member of the community again, and I may choose not to bring your behaviour to the community's attention.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

More copy-pasted text

Rochelimit, seriously?[3][4]

I was suspicious based on the Ayudha katti incident, so I went through a couple more of your articles (the bottom three of your last fifty created mainspace pages) and while Qa'a (room) didn't have any apparent problems (relying as it did on apparently offline sources, I did not bother looking too deeply at it), Hotel Sriwijaya, Jakarta contained one full sentence lifted straight from the source and another sentence with the pronoun "it" simply replaced with "the hotel", and Tiraz contained large chunks of copy-pasted text.

How many of your articles have these problems? Does the community need to pore over your work to get rid of all the plagiarized text? What about the text that you lifted straight from offline sources we don't have access to? Do the articles need to be deleted to ensure beyond doubt that this text is removed from Wikipedia?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Here as well. And here. And this as well. The only one of six articles I checked whose sources were online and free that did not apparently contain copy-pasted text was Dao (Naga sword), and that one appears to have verifiability issues as much of the content attributed to Greaves, Bowditch and Winston appears not to be backed up by that source. Marangga, Saka guru, Saintie, Madaka and Pisau raut are all based on offline sources in English -- how can we assume you didn't plagiarize those sources' text when 5/6 of the articles you wrote based on sources we can check were definitely found to contain plagiarized text? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Another one. Here as well. And here. Toradar contains a negligible datum attributed to an online source, which is not plagiarized, but is otherwise based almost exclusively on English-language offline sources. And this. Pupuk and Pichangatti are based to a large extent on English-language offline sources, and I am growing increasingly skeptical about whether you could be trusted if you claimed you didn't plagiarize text from them. Dirgantara Mandala Museum is the only one of this batch of articles that I'm confident you didn't plagiarize, since all the sources are in Indonesian but all our text is in English (meaning the only way you could have copy-pasted the text would be if you did so from another source not cited in the article, and I'm much too lazy to go find that out). That's a total of 21 articles analyzed, ten containing definite plagiarism, ten possibly containing plagiarism, and only one probably not containing plagiarism. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC) (edited 03:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC))

O_0 thanks for mentioning. I'm fixing them ASAP.--Rochelimit (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

RL, while most of your fixes were not as bad as this (which left in a copy-pasted sentence and blanked a "failed verification" tag while actually making the OR problem worse), it seems like all of them introduced new grammatical and spelling errors. Is all of your text either (a) in need of copy editing or (b) at least partly plagiarized?

And while "thanks for mentioning" is definitely a more cordial response than what I got last time I told someone off for copyright violation, it doesn't address the above problems adequately. You copy-pasted text onto Wikipedia at least a dozen times in the last few weeks, and that's just the ones I've been able to check so far. You have not answered any of the questions I posed to you. Assuming that this is not more evasiveness on your part and is instead a result of the manner in which I formatted the questions confusing you, I'll repost them in numeric bullet points:

1. Do you understand that copy-pasting text from external sources onto Wikipedia is plagiarism, and is forbidden?
2. Did you understand this before I brought this to your attention today?
3. Are you willing to remove all the text you plagiarized in all the articles you have written for Wikipedia?
4. Did you plagiarize your offline sources as well as the ones I was able to access?
5. Did you plagiarize any text from unnamed sources, for example in the articles you wrote that cite only Indonesian and/or Dutch sources?
6. Do you recognize that your repeated evasive lying (as you did when you claimed the meatpuppets you obviously recruited to help you copy edit your articles were just a mysterious coincidence, and when you claimed in the section just above this one that you were not monitoring my discussion with Titodutta on my talk page) will make it very difficult for other Wikipedians to take your word for it if your answers to questions 4 or 5 (or possibly even 2) are "no"?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The first time you asked me about the verifiability of ayudha katti article on the sentence "cut the undergrowth", I checked whether it is mentioned in the offline source I had, and it is there. So I removed the tag. As of these new set of issues, give me time, I will check one by one.--Rochelimit (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop dodging, and answer the questions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not a new set of issues. You copy-pasted text multiple times in a matter of days. It wasn't an "accident" -- you must have been conscious of it. I'm asking you if you understand that you are not allowed do it, and to what extent you have been doing it in your seven-year editing career. As for "cut the undergrowth" -- what are you talking about!? The problem was that you copy-pasted text from a source and attributed it to a different source, which is not only a copyvio, but also probably violates V. But V is not the issue here. The problem is copyright violations. And stop dodging the question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

None of this matters.

Rochelimit, having read what you wrote about me on Bbb23's talk page, I would have to sincerely implore you to read WP:HOLES. Either (a) you did not read my messages to you either in this section or the section immediately above, but nevertheless assumed to summarize tbem for an admin on their talk page, (b) you read them, but did not understand them, and nevertheless assumed to summarize them for an admin on their talk page, or (c) you read and understood them, but lied about their contents to an admin on their talk page. To give just two examples, the problem with your tagging the Textual tradition article as you did was not that the wording of the template made me angry -- it was that it revealed you had been tagging articles I had written without having actually read them, as the text in question already was translated; and the hounding of me by you of which the Textual tradition tag was an example has nothing to do with my above questions to you regarding plagiarism. Whichever one of (a), (b) and (c) is the case, you do not come across well. Honestly, even without the hounding problems, you would be lucky to get away with only a bunch of your articles getting blanked and you losing the top spot in the editathon as a result, since copyright violation is taken very seriously on here and users have been indefinitely blocked for less than what you have done. I do not intend of bring the hounding problem to the attention of the admins unless you keep it up, or you continue badmouthing me as you have been doing on Bbb23's talk page. But what you really, really need to do is stop what you have been doing, reflect on it, read over our policies more thoroughly than you apparently have been doing for the last seven years, and answer the questions I posed to you above. Going around removing the maintenance tags that have already been placed on your articles and addressing those problems one at a time is not going to help your situation, as doing so gives the impression that you are more interested in making sure no one notices the plagiarism than in actually ensuring your articles are completely clean of plagiarism. This was a particularly troubling example, as you removed a couple of maintenance tags and fixed the specific plagiarized text to which they had been attached, but left a whole chunk of plagiarized text immediately above and below the same. In short, doing what you have been doing is extremely dangerous (again, see WP:HOLES). What you need to do is stop, reflect on the questions, and if you do not understand anything in them admit you do not understand and ask. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Also, please learn that WP:AGF applies to everyone equally. You have been repeatedly demanding that I and others "assume good faith" and believe you even when your account of events cannot be harmonized with the factual record (for example, your claim that you had not been inspired to "one source" tag a bunch of my articles after reading Titodutta's suggestion of such on my talk page, even though you started doing so roughly two hours later). You are not allowed impugn my good faith with claims like I think this automated tag angered him, and so ... he began to tag the articles I introduced ... for ... copyright violations. Had I known that your articles contained massive amounts of plagiarized text, I would have tagged them and confronted you about it immediately. The only reason I started checking your sources and noticing the vast amounts of plagiarized text at this time was because, a week earlier (long before I was "angered" by your hounding of me), you had essentially ignored my warning about plagiarism and verifiability, and I started to suspect your other articles may have similar problems. Yes, I was motivated to actually do the leg work and check your sources because you had been harassing me, but you are wrong to assume that I already knew about the plagiarism and only started tagging your articles as a response to your tagging mine. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Rochelimit, it just occurred to me that you don't seem to have understood this most important point. I am not here to hurt you as revenge for the stuff discussed in sections above. I am trying to help you and save as much of your articles as possible.

You see, if it can be reasonably suspected that an article includes plagiarized text, but we (the community, not me personally) cannot confirm this one way or the other, the article will need to be blanked (all or almost all of the content removed) or deleted (the page will be removed from public view permanently).

The problem with the way you have been approaching the problem so far (fixing specific chunks of plagiarized text that have already been identified by other users, namely me) is that it places the burden on other users to locate and identify text you copy-pasted. Even diligent editors will not be willing to do this kind of work, so the probable result will be blanking or deletion.

You need to go back through the sources you used and the articles you wrote yourself, and create a list of the articles that contain plagiarized text. Then you need to set to work making sure to rewrite everything you copy-pasted in your own words. This may seem like a lot of hard work -- it is -- and it might even be embarrassing for you, but is it honestly worse than seeing all of your hard work get undone? Because that is what is going to happen if you don't start coming forward and fixing the problems yourself.

This is not a threat, nor is it something I personally want to see happen. It's just a statement of fact about how cases like this are normally dealt with on Wikipedia. Please take this advice for what it is, and do not read into it that I am trying to scare or intimidate you.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry Hijiri, I don't mean to offend you and really want to collaborate with u in fixing articles. Sorry Hijiri, as much as I try to consider this as a non-threat, I'm genuinely scared on doing anything in wiki, especially after u blank a section in naga morsarang. As much as I want to clarify and answered, I'm too scared of explaining to u because last time before the sock puppet accusation, I explained that I don't know anything, but u don't believe me. I explained again in the accusation page, but U still don't believe me and talk explicitl "I dont believe you" despite me trying to reason (I was hurt by this, as if I am not to be believed, that I'm a liar), and even up to this point. I explained that I'm not hounding because I want to explain that I tag hours before you may check the history, but I don't think you even believe that. You don't even believe when I say I don't read the titodutta part. I'm scared you will not believe any of my answers to your last questions, because now I think I'm just a liar so I decide to back up because I'm scared of inciting another wall of wiki policies I dont know anything about. I read for the first time thoroughly your talk page and now I understand. So I'm really sorry Hijiri but maybe I need a break. I try to d everything you ask me, but with the naga morsarang blanking, I'm scared. I felt that I will always make mistakes of editing in English Wikipedia tbh, I don't feel confident or comfortable anymuore. I need a break. Sorry I will return for sure but for now I need a break from contributing the Indonesian colonial architecture and ethnic arts in Wiki. All I can say is happy holiday and For now I'll take a break and return to my real friends and relatives who are too cool to even edit in Wikipedia (I'm the wiki-nerd here). Very sorry Hijiri I really wish we can collaborate together and not this. I only have night time and too tired.--Rochelimit (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what to say: I'm sorry I don't believe you, but it would be easier to believe if you didn't blatantly lie all the time. Are you familiar with The Boy Who Cried Wolf? When you claim that you were reading everyone's WAM entries and "just coincidentally happened" to tag 20 of mine, or that your tag "just coincidentally happened" to be the one I had already stated on my talk page less than two hours earlier would be inappropriate, you destroy your own credibility, and when you try to cite AGF in your defense you make it impossible to believe you when you say, for example, that you are legitimately trying to fix your articles' plagiarism problems. You seem to be trying to criticize me for blank[ing] a section in naga morsarang, but the text I blanked was (mostly if not entirely) plagiarized, and you had failed to fix the problem yourself, instead removing the tag and pretending it was fixed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• sorry if typo of capital U will offend u. I'm writing from my iPhone in a train. I will fix little by little.--Rochelimit (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• So ... yeah ... this shows you were already plagiarizing text in February 2013, and this shows that you were still doing the same thing at the beginning of last month. This puts your statement on Bbb23's talk page to the effect sorry for not being able to reword the sentences good enough during the WAM sprint/marathon. I guess the intensity of the event makes me careless, to the point that when I thought I already reword the sentences to avoid copyvio, turns out it is not enough in doubt. You are entitled to make mistakes in not understanding Wikipedia policy and copyright law, but when it is explained to you you need to be humble, apologize for your mistakes, and work to do better. I won't hold your rewriting of history by claiming that it was only the rush of the editathon that led to you being careless against you, but you need to acknowledge the truth once it comes out. I've already wasted far more of my life cleaning up your mistakes than you have, let alone than I should have to.

Now, are you going to help us figure out which text needs to be removed so the pages can be revdelled? This needs to be done. We might as well start with the articles you wrote last month as they should mostly still be in your memory. Note that continuing to be uncooperative as you have been for the last three days will probably lead to the result TonyBallioni alluded to in his ANI close, so it would really be in your best interests to follow my advice, rather than whatever has been leading you up to this point, from now on.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Piha kaetta) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Piha kaetta, Rochelimit!

Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for creating this article.

To reply, leave a comment on Abishe's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Abishe (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Help me, I don't know what to do

• First time feeling intimidated.
• First time feeling so helpless in Wikipedia.

--Rochelimit (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Rochelimit, you should read WP:POLEMIC. Most of the above-linked threads is you harassing me (even refusing to call me "Hijiri", instead giving me my own awesome nickname), so it's really out of line for you to post a section on your talk page trying to recontexualize them like this. If you are not actually going to try to fix the plagiarism issues, I'm going to have to call in outside help, because I have better things to do with my life an fix all of them myself. Should I? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• • I'm fixing don't you see my history? It's not just you who's busy with life ok? It's weekdays of christmas for god's sake!--Rochelimit (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, your focus on Muslim and Hindu topics left me no reason to believe you celebrated Christmas. I do, but that doesn't mean I'm busy two weeks before Christmas -- my ancestors referred to the month of December and Christmas with the same word, but I don't.

Anyway, as I've tried to make clear to you literally dozens of times now, it's not "fixing it" that I and others want you to do. Your edits to the tiraz and naga morsarang articles make it clear that you are either incapable of fixing or unwilling to fix the problems by yourself, which is why it would be a lot more helpful if you clarified what your understanding of plagiarism is and has been, and which articles might have these problems.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Problem cleaning up plagiarized text. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Please note that I am NOT asking for you to be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. I am notifying you as a required formality, not to allow you to defend yourself against a requested block or anything like that. The problem here is cleanup, not any of the other stuff; if you do not want to be involved in the cleanup, as you seem to have been indicating, that is a choice for you to make. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I felt like you're twisting my word. I never said i dont want to be involved in the cleanup, in fact I really want to do the clean up, revisiting one by one. Also, do you know the Japanese celebrate xmas? Same here.--Rochelimit (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not twisting your words. I asked you a series of questions that are fairly standard issue for copyvio, and you absolutely refused to answer them, instead running to an admin and essentially asking for me to be blocked for "scaring you". You need to understand that what you have been doing by blanking the maintenance tags and fixing the examples specifically mentioned is not enough: on two articles that you already "fixed", I had to step in and blank more content afterward because it turned out it still contained copyvio. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: "General check as requested"

The following was originally posted as a response to this. Rochelimit decontextualized my comment by both changing the section title and removing the word "requested" completely. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

RL, who requested this? I know the answer, but you have to understand that you're still not doing what you were told. I asked you to tell me how far back this problem goes (I've been able to track it back to February 2013) and to how many articles. By just listing the articles you've already done a "general check" on, it still gives the impression that you are more interested in covering your tracks than in fixing the problem.

On an unrelated note, I suspect the official hotel to accommodate the Paskibraka might still be too close to the official hotel to accommodate the annual PASKIBRAKA team. Was this just a mistaken oversight, or do you still not understand what you have been doing wrong?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I also notice you barely touched the text that was originally attributed to this book -- was there absolutely no plagiarism from that source? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, you do understand that once the copyvio text has been removed, we need to request WP:REVDEL to remove the copyright violation from the public logs, don't you? So if there's any of it left when that happens and that needs to get removed again a later date, we'd need to request revdel again; that's why I would prefer that you be transparent than that you simply say you've done a "thorough check" and then change that to "general improvement". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you do some work on Sopo (structure)? It seems that virtually the entire article was a copy-paste job, and the only thing stopping me from requesting that it be speedily deleted is that I know that'll just invite more ire from you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how far back, because most of the time it's an Indonesian subject translated from Dutch or Indonesian source, and I forgot. I have to check one by one, and I'll truly be happy to check even the very first article I introduced.

Is the PASKIBRAKA sentence still too close? if yes, I will re-sentence that also. I actually rewrote everything without copying the source, using my memory. I guess my memory is still some how attached to the original sentence especially during the speedy WAM marathon, and I did not do recheck. I'll do it in 8 hours tmie.

I will checked the 19th-century photograph source. Based on your note on the PASKIBRAKA sentence, there might still be very similar sentences in terms of subject in the beginning, time at the end, etc. I think tonight I'll recheck again like super slow this time and make sure it is extremely completely different. Sometimes there are so many foreign term, and the sentence is too short, it's kinda difficult to completely change sentence, But noted.

I'll check Sopo in 8 hours time after I slowly check the Hotel Sriwijaya. Please don't delete because as it is very discouraging to me. I prefer to have something like this, even if you have no time to check but you suspect something, I will check for sure. That's why when you delete the naga morsarang I tend to stay away from that article, if affects me emotionally and it's very hard for me to even try to be neutral and return to something that has been deemed to be deleted, it's hard. It's not ire, it's more of a trauma for me. I'm a pacifist. I prefer to have discussion like this.

But yeah, give me time to check thorough the Sriwijaya first.

Anyway, yes we celebrate xmas like the Japanese celebrate xmas.--Rochelimit (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, it's good that you answered one: thank you. How about this: if I am reading an article you put on Wikipedia that cites an English-language source, would you say that there is more than a 60% chance that it contains copy-pasted text?

The PASKIBRAKA sentence is tricky. See, I think copyright is irrelevant and it doesn't belong in our article per WP:NOT. It is a piece of promotional information coming from a primary source, and actually if I were advising the international marketing team responsible for the English version of that website I would tell them that foreigners reading it don't understand or care, and it would be better to just cut it out. But yes, I think it is still too much to copy those seven words: but I might just be interpreting this in an overly critical fashion in light of the clear plagiarism that was definitely there earlier. @TonyBallioni: what do you think?

Anyway, it's not important for Wikipedia, but as for Christmas: interesting. I would have assumed that, with Indonesia being the largest Muslim country in the world, comparing it to the casual celebration of Christmas in Japan (whose population is mostly self-identified as non-religious) would be weird. As far as I can tell, most Japanese are either completely unaware of Christmas's being a religious feast (the "Christ Mass") or they know and don't care.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit and then revdel’d. RL, thanks for being cooperative on this. It’s very helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

thank you for your kind words @TonyBallioni: ! it means a lot :) --Rochelimit (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I think Rochelimit misunderstood your message as an unreserved endorsement of his behaviour, and he has become less cooperative as a result. Seven minutes after writing the above, he reverted my removal of some OR without adding a new source. And while I'm pinging you, I might as well ask if you think temporary resting place for travelers, resting place for celibate males is still too close to dormitory for celibate males ... temporary quarters for travelers and Batak Toba house also stands broadly ... on the ground; the sopo ... widens as it goes up toward the cantilevered attic-storage at the roof level. is still too close to Batak Toba house also stands broadly on the ground, while the sopo ... widens at the level of the cantilevered attic floor. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think those are pretty close. I'm not familiar enough with the area to get involved in the OR question (though if it is not verifiable and is OR, it should not be included) per WP:V. RL, my message above was thanking you for being cooperative with the concerns around copyright, which I do appreciate. You need to remember to write everything in your own words, and not to paraphrase so closely to the text. Summarize what it says rather than changing out a word or two. There are some exceptions to this, but I don't think the sentences quoted above fall within them. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

There is no "less cooperative" from my part Hijiri88, I don't know why you always accuse me negatively every single time. Why I thank @TonyBallioni: because his kind words have an effect on encouraging myself to be more active on the checking, your statement is always "you are a liar", "you create puppets", "you don't cooperate with me", "you have horrible grammar", "you try to hide something", "you try to remove tracks", and now "you try to be less cooperative". I felt undermotivated by these statements, again and again, and continuously from you Hijiri. It is bullying and it hurts a lot. I really wish to be able to collaborate at least: you note something, and I checked it, that simple. You don't have to place very mean words on me on every findings, at least try to be polite Hijiri, you are talking with a person, not a robot.--Rochelimit (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Rochelimit, you were frankly lucky to get off without a block for what you did to me earlier this week, and what you've been doing to the project for the last 5+ years. It's likely the only reason you weren't blocked was because I actively went out of my way to say I didn't want that as the solution. You are really pushing your luck by continuing to hurl ridiculous accusations like what most of the above amounts to -- I would advise you to drop it, and never accuse me or any other user of "bullying" you again.

And please start working on compiling a list of articles you added plagiarized text to: that would be a much better solution than what you have been doing, since you would almost certainly be better at it than I am (I've been sinking way too much time into it over the last week, even though I know you are at least partially aware of which articles have this problem), while I (and in fact most experienced en.wiki editors) would be a lot better than you at actually fixing the plagiarism problems without (a) producing paraphrases that are still too close, (b) introducing awkward English that will need copy editing, or (c) introducing new content that actually says something different from what the cited sources say.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Rochelimit, I know it's a lot to ask, but would you mind further familiarizing yourself with both WP:V and WP:NOR as well? This edit may have removed copyright violation, but much of your earlier text (basically anything that was not copy-pasted) is actually a violation of other Wikipedia policies. There are technical errors like "Beekman 1988, p. 156" actually being p. 157, but some of the stuff, like sopo eme, eme means "rice", doesn't appear to have any relation to the source. You might know this from elsewhere and you might be right, but you need to attribute it inline to a reliable source, not attribute it to a source that doesn't actually support it.

Additionally, it seems like a lot of your close paraphrases are still intact. For example, temporary resting place for travelers, resting place for celibate males feels a bit too close to dormitory for celibate males ... temporary quarters for travelers. I suspect you may be unable to provide accurate paraphrases because of your language ability, which is not something we can help in the short run, so what I would suggest is that you either avoid using English sources for sentences like this, or you just don't write sentences like this on Wikipedia.

And in case it's not clear, the above is based only on the first paragraph of your rewritten text. I have not gotten around to the rest.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

RL, I'm really wondering about what you mean by Batak Toba house also stands broadly with the posts spreading outward as it stood on the ground; the sopo on the other hand was designed with its post converged inward toward the center, and then it widens as it goes up toward the cantilevered attic-storage at the roof level. Given that the earlier version's Batak Toba house also stands broadly on the ground, while the sopo rises from a narrow base and widens at the level of the cantilevered attic floor. was essentially copy-pasted, I'm really wondering if you think adding a bunch of "filler words" that don't add anything will solve the plagiarism problem. As far as I am aware, it doesn't, and in fact just makes the plagiarized text near-unreadable.

There's also the fact that you have generally replaced the source's ruma with "Batak Toba house", which by itself introduces a lot of grammatical errors to the section since it should be "houses"; but actually the two are not synonyms -- both our article and the source make it clear that sopo too serve as houses for Batak Toba people, which means that we can't contrast your translation of ruma with sopo as we are currently doing; and translating ruma doesn't even help with the plagiarism issue.

That said, I may be wrong about all of these and your changes do address the copyright problems -- do you want to ping TonyBallioni this time? (I can guarantee you he will agree that the section is nearly unreadable at present, but it's the copyright thing I'm not sure of.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Translation from foreign-language Wikimedia projects

Hey, I was doing a quick examination of your article Old Bank Indonesia Building, Padang and it seems to be largely a straight translation of the id.wiki article on the same topic (I don't read Indonesian, but Google Translate gave me a rendition that was almost word-for-word the same as yours in places). While copying from foreign-language editions of Wikipedia is acceptable, you need to provide attribution per WP:TFOLWP. Additionally, it seems you didn't verify the sources used in the Indonesian article, as you did not update the access dates and three of them are broken links. Note that this means you cannot vouch for the accuracy or the verifiability of the content you added, as you essentially did by submitting it to WAM. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I added archive link for the missing links. I haven't verified the refs thoroughly, but so far the contents are stated in detik-blog refs. They are mainly very general sentences.--Rochelimit (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Rochelimit, normally I would take silence on a matter as indicating acceptance of the rule and tacit promise to follow it going forward, but the fact that you still have not provided attribution on the talk page or in the page history, while making other unnecessary edits like your personal remark directed at me a couple of sections up on this page, indicates that either (a) you did not read that part of my message, (b) you did not understand that part of my message, or (c) you both read and understood it, but for whatever reason do not accept it. Could you elaborate? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I saw the dead links you've mentioned in Old Bank Indonesia Building, Padang, so I did a quick check on the dead links and fixed it by providing archive links. This is the first step. Of course, I still have to check whether the content is correctly attributed or not. I will do that ASAP once I returned to my usual PC (busy in real life).

Sorry I just read it, does it mean I should place the translated page tag? I will put it now.--Rochelimit (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I have problems with the revision numerals, so I left them empty (because it is "recommended").--Rochelimit (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Days of the year#Births and deaths sections being too-Anglophone and/or Euro-centric?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Days of the year#Births and deaths sections being too-Anglophone and/or Euro-centric?. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

• Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up

• Blog: Close encounters of the Wikipedia kind

• Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017

• In the media: Stolen seagulls, public domain primates and more

• Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors

• Gallery: Wiki loving

• Interview: Interview with Charlesjsharp, regular contributor of Wikipedia's Featured Pictures

• Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity"

• Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech

• Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys

• Humour: On their way to the WMF Incubator

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Thorough check

• Boraspati ni Tano--Rochelimit (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Hotel Sriwijaya, Jakarta
• Pichangatti--Rochelimit (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• Sopo (structure)
• Turban helmet--Rochelimit (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop, and listen

Rochelimit, many of your "thorough checks", including your most recent one, have very obviously not solved the problems. If a source says it is likely that turban helmets were regarded not merely as armor but also a kind of religious insignia, it's not acceptable for you to write on Wikipedia this indicates that the turban helmet is not only worn as an armor in war, but also as a kind of religious insignia. Introducing grammatical errors and moving words around to say things the sources don't actually support ("certain dervish groups [wearing] turbans wound with a prescribed number of folds to represent an important mystical number" became "certain mystical dervish groups") actually makes the articles' problems worse, not better.

The "in war" you added to the above-quoted text is actually contradicted by the source, as the religious significance relates to the helmets' use in holy war, which means it needs to be cut, but cutting it (and the ungrammatical "an" you added) would cause our text to read not only worn as armor, but also as a kind of religious insignia, scarcely three words different from the source, one a very close synonym and another a grammatical particle. This kind of paraphrasing is still much too close.

Please work on making a list of all the articles you have written that include plagiarized text, and the sources they plagiarize, and let others work on removing the plagiarized text, as this would definitely be a more productive use of everyone's time. Note that I am assuming you gave the above your best effort and were simply incapable of fixing them, rather than that you didn't bother trying to fix them but claim you did.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Could you help rewriting the religious insignia and the mystical number part to make it even more different than the original text? I have troubles finding the best way to describe this with different wordings. I haven't finished with the kulah khud, so I didnt put it in the section.

Please don't place a section below my thorough checked list. I need the section to be empty of any comments.--Rochelimit (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If you start compiling the list of articles that have problems, I'll see what I can do about those articles, including the turban helmet article.

Thank you for telling me about the subsection thing. Had you mentioned it before, I wouldn't have done it as many times as I did. I will stop now.

That said, if you intend to do as I've been requesting, I don't see the point of preserving a "thorough checked" list on your own talk page. Strictly speaking, this page is supposed to be for other people to contact you: asking them not to edit particular sections that are reserved for you is not really appropriate. That kind of stuff belongs on your main user page, your sandbox, some other user subpage, or possibly the CCI entry.

I should also advise you to seriously reflect on your editing style if you thought your turban helmet edit was adequate to address the copyright concerns; if I have troubles finding the best way to describe this with different wordings is something that keeps happening even after this mess is cleared up, you may wind up in a lot more trouble than I'm willing to put you in. (Please note that this is not a threat of any action I intend to take. I've made it clear that I don't want you blocked since that would create a bunch of trouble for me in relation to WAM. I'm merely warning of what other users who don't personally benefit from your keeping your editing rights will do.)

And if you want advice on how to summarize in different words, then I suggest you do just that: summarize. Take a paragraph of text, read it carefully to figure out what its "main point" is, and write that in one short sentence. This is what we should be doing in general. Your turban helmet article (among others) takes everything the MET source has to say on the topic and says the exact same thing; if you tried summarizing rather than saying everything the source says, it should be easier for you not to do so in the source's exact words.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment on this case as an uninvolved administrator who has some knowledge in copyright concerns. This is a situation I've seen many times before. I'm going to state this bluntly: you are not sufficiently proficient in, and/or confident in using written English, and you compensate for this by copying content into Wikipedia. You have two realistic options to improve your English skills/confidence while editing Wikipedia: translate content from English to Bahasa Indonesia (relatively easy; but do not give a direct translation, you need to understand what's being said) or follow the advice given at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#How to write acceptable content (relatively hard). Given your situation, I suggest starting with the first -- the Indonesian Wikipedia has less than 1/10th of the articles on en.wp; you will find it a lot easier to find stuff to write about.

You need to heed this advice; any further copying from external sources will result in your editing privileges on the English Wikipedia being revoked without further discussion. MER-C 20:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@MER-C: Thank you for your suggestions. I shall do the first. Most of my contributions for the English Wikipedia were in maintaining the holidays and observances section, a relatively small work. The previous event was one of the few times where I pushed myself to create more articles for the sake of the event. Despite the provided citations and references, the speed of the event causes me to become reckless in checking both referencing and grammar. Together with the strange occurrences which follow the event, the entire event has become quite stressful for me, which affected my editing. I shall avoid doing hasty work like that. Happy holiday!--Rochelimit (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Rochelimit, I've said this to you already, but I'm going to say it again. You are not in trouble now, since copyright problems with non-native English speakers are a thing that happens. But if you continue to distort the facts like above rather than owning the problem like you should, it will not work out well for you. You copy-pasted text in February 2013, when you were under no pressure to do "hasty work".Own your mistakes, and apologize for them: don't try to minimize them or pretend they didn't happen, or the rest of the community will stop assuming they were good-faith mistakes. The same goes with your repeated "coincidence" claims.[5][6] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

WAM Address Collection

Congratulations! You have more than 4 accepted articles in Wikipedia Asian Month! Please submit your postal mailing address via Google form or email me about that on erick@asianmonth.wiki before the end of Janauary, 2018. The Wikimedia Asian Month team only has access to this form, and we will only share your address with local affiliates to send postcards. All personal data will be destroyed immediately after postcards are sent. Please contact your local organizers if you have any question. We apologize for the delay in sending this form to you, this year we will make sure that you will receive your postcard from WAM. If you've not received a postcard from last year's WAM, Please let us know. All ambassadors will receive an electronic certificate from the team. Be sure to fill out your email if you are enlisted Ambassadors list.

Best, Erick Guan (talk)

WAM Address Collection - 1st reminder

Hi there. This is a reminder to fill the address collection. Sorry for the inconvenience if you did submit the form before. If you still wish to receive the postcard from Wikipedia Asian Month, please submit your postal mailing address via this Google form. This form is only accessed by WAM international team. All personal data will be destroyed immediately after postcards are sent. If you have problems in accessing the google form, you can use Email This User to send your address to my Email.

If you do not wish to share your personal information and do not want to receive the postcard, please let us know at WAM talk page so I will not keep sending reminders to you. Best, Sailesh Patnaik

Confusion in the previous message- WAM

Hello again, I believe the earlier message has created some confusion. If you have already submitted the details in the Google form, it has been accepted, you don't need to submit it again. The earlier reminder is for those who haven't yet submitted their Google form or if they any alternate way to provide their address. I apologize for creating the confusion. Thanks-Sailesh Patnaik

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

• News and notes: Communication is key

• In the media: The Paris Review, British Crown and British Media

• Featured content: History, gaming and multifarious topics

• Interview: Interview with Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the top contributor to English Wikipedia by edit count

• Technology report: Dedicated Wikidata database servers

• Humour: Why don't we have an article about _________?

• Arbitration report: Mister Wiki is first arbitration committee decision of 2018

• Traffic report: The best and worst of 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

• Op-ed: Do editors have the right to be forgotten?

• Featured content: Wars, sieges, disasters and everything black possible

• Recent research: Automated Q&A from Wikipedia articles; Who succeeds in talk page discussions?

• Blog: New monthly dataset shows where people fall into Wikipedia rabbit holes

• Interview: Interview with The Rambling Man, Wikipedia's top contributor of Featured Lists

• Traffic report: TV, death, sports, and doodles

• Special report: Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative

• Arbitration report: New cases requested for inter-editor hostility and other collaboration issues

• In the media: Solving crime; editing out violence allegations

• Humour: You really are in Wonderland

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

• News and notes: The future is Swedish with a lack of administrators

• Recent research: Politically diverse editors write better articles; Reddit and Stack Overflow benefit from Wikipedia but don't give back

• Arbitration report: Arbitration committee prepares to examine two new cases

• Traffic report: Addicted to sports and pain

• Featured content: Entertainment, sports and history

• Technology report: Paragraph-based edit conflict screen; broken thanks

• Humour: Impossible and unexplained traffic report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trams in Jakarta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tapanuli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

• Op-ed: Death knell for The Signpost?

• News and notes: Wiki Conference roundup and new appointments.

• Arbitration report: Ironing out issues in infoboxes; not sure yet about New Jersey; and an administrator who probably wasn't uncivil to a sockpuppet.

• In the media: The media on Wikipedia's workings: the good and not-so-good

• Traffic report: Real sports, real women and an imaginary country: what's on top for Wikipedia readers

• Featured content: Animals, Ships, and Songs

• Technology report: Timeless skin review by Force Radical.

• Special report: ACTRIAL wrap-up.

• Humour: WikiWorld Reruns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

So... you gonna clean up that copyvio now...?

Hey, I've been looking at your recent contribs, and while they don't seem to use English sources a lot (making it very difficult to determine if they include copyvio), you have been editing pages to which you previously added plagiarized content like here (copyvio added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kebayoran_Baru&type=revision&diff=671255988&oldid=659722011 July 2015). Would you mind putting more energy into checking sources for close paraphrasing and unmarked quotation? Your recent edits to Kebayoran Baru will need to be rev-delled anyway once the copyvio text is finally purged, you know. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for indicating. I'll check bit by bit. @TonyBallioni:, please help to guide on this.--Rochelimit (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Anything that you copied from another source will need to be removed. When you have done that, ping me and I can cleanup the revision history. I do not have time at this point to help manually check the sources, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: Thanks Tony, I'm currently checking the indicated sources (was a 3 years ago edit). I'll let you know once finished.--Rochelimit (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost's presses roll again

• Signpost: Future directions for The Signpost

• News and notes: Photo of Kim Jong-un. Stephen Hawking death tops hits on many Wikipedias.

• In the media: The rise of Wikipedia as a disinformation mop

• In focus: Admin reports board under criticism

• Special report: ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide

• Opinion: Guideline for Organization Notability revised

• Op-ed: World War II Myth-making and Wikipedia

• Community view: It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias

• Discussion report: The future of portals

• Arbitration report: No new cases, and one motion on administrative misconduct

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Military History

• Blog: Why the world reads Wikipedia

• Humour: Our Favorite Places to Whine About Stuff

• Traffic report: A quiet place to wrestle with the articles of March

• Technology report: Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Gallery: A look at some famous and not as well-known border tripoints

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)