C1K98V

Hi C1K98V! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! -- Nick (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Nick: now it's working sir. Thanks alot you are really helpful. C1K98V (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi C1K98V. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until 17 September 2020. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! GeneralNotability (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi C1K98V. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until {{{expiry}}}. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Nick (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

C1K98V (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Yes I accept. It's my fault. I did copyright violation. But my intention was never to do something like spamming or advertising. I really don't want to violate any policy. I'm feeling guilty for violating the policy. But I never did all these in bad faith. I know my way is wrong. Yes, after you reject the submission I read the draft and found that you're right and it's not in a neutral tone. I paraphrase while creating the draft. All the reference and source which I provided, I tried to paraphrase from there only to create a draft. I understood my mistake, as I was trying to paraphrase text from sources which are not free or in public domain and also I didn't try to write in my own words. I'm blocked for these reasons. But honestly, I would never ever again do such things and I'm ready to rectify and correct my mistake whatever I did. I know copyright violation is strictly not allowed in wikipedia. And I really apologize from the bottom of my heart that I will never do it ever again. Please I humbly request you give me a chance to show and I promise I won't let you down and neither the community. Please consider my request and believe in me, I will try my level best to become a good editor. If granted unblock I assure you, I will always assume good faith and refrain making any edit that would violate copyright. I have learnt from my mistake, and would never repeat it again. Thank you. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 16:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Accept reason:

see blow Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I understand that what I did was wrong. I should never begin with such. But I did. I'm responsible for my block. And that's the reason I'm blocked. I know owning the mistake won't clean the mess which I created, but understanding the mistake before it's too late and willingness to help out and remove the copyright violation, should be the one and it's my top priority now if given a chance. Thanks --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 02:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

You haven't answered the question of why you did it in the first place. I imagine any reviewing admin will expect the answer to this question. Waggie (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I never intend to do this, either for first place or doing it continuously. Its my faults that I misunderstood the policy and didn't tried to write in own words rather than paraphrase text from the source which I used. Everybody does mistake and as human mistake are commons. And I accept it consequences are harsh. I have learnt from my mistake. If given a chance I would like to correct and clean up the contents which are not suitable to be on wikipedia. I assume in good faith and would like to give assurance to community that you will not see any mistake from my side ever again. Thank you. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have been reading other similar articles and have been trying to make my articles to look like them. I was blocked for copyvios and going through the article Draft:Kaatelal & Sons again I identified 2 types of copyvios. The first type is a short quote directly marked as quotes and reading Wikipedia:Quotations I belived the quote to be okay because I think it was relevant, short and there was a source. The second type are short sentences with facts and resumes of the content not marked as direct quotes. On Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted_material_and_fair_use they mention 400 words and damaging sales as a reason where a quote was not okay. In my article I used short sentences of about 45 words and I thought it was okay because it was short and not revealing any breaking news and therefore not thought to damage anyone’s sales. I did not mark it as quotes because it was short and I saw it as simple facts. If you see other problems in the article I would be grateful if you could tell me what problems. I have done the same in other articles so if I’m unblocked I will definitely go through the other articles and make sure there not similar problems in those, If their is any problem I will like to take initiative to fix it. Thanks --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 10:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was reading about fair use -- we don't have the concept of fair use on commons, where I am most active at. But I did not understand the difference between fair use and copyright violation ends. I am still learning about fair use and to avoid this in future, I will refrain from adding anything fair use, unless I properly understand it. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have been contacted at Commons by C1K98V where I was asked to look into this matter. @AmandaNP: I don't see any warnings about copyright infringements on this talk page prior to the block, so an indef seems a bit harsh to me. I am also inclined to believe that they confused the concept of fair use with applying original content very liberally. C1K98V was blocked two weeks ago and has had time to reflect their edits, and what I see looks like they have learned their lesson. So, would you be opposed to unblocking? De728631 (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@De728631: An indef was required because it went way beyond the one or two articles. My primary other concerns relate to UPE. C1K98V was 1 of 2 people that magically showed up on my talkpage about an article I G5'd because it was a sock creation from another UPE network. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@AmandaNP and De728631: As you said primary concern, I would like to say that I'm not editing for payment, nor associated with anyone. I never did and will never engage in such things. I read few articles and like the concept so I joined and started editing. I don't know what is magical in it. If I see vandalism somewhere, I would try to help out, if I can. I find out that the article was live and deleted and you're last admins who did this adminstrative action [1]. So I reached out to you. I misunderstood policy and I regret doing so. I made edit in good faith to contribute. I understand my mistake that I unintentionally violated the policy. But if given a chance I will be greatful and refrain from doing such mistake ever again. Thanks for your consideration. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 04:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@AmandaNP, De728631, and Waggie: Hello all. I randomly heard of this issue on IRC. I am a bit surprised that even in response to De728631's inquiry, even after some days, that there has still not been the naming of even a single specific infraction that C1K98V has done. You said "concerns relate to" without naming them. Why are you talking like this and what is this supposed to even mean? Are you trying to articulate a question as to whether C1K98V has committed WP:UPE, or who or what? Is this all even done in accordance with any policy? There was no warning, there is is no good faith followup whatsoever, there is no accounting for the possibility of a huge administrative error in the pursuit of great justice. You said "it went way beyond the one or two articles" so can we get any update with links to said articles or the copyvio diff? C1K98V hasn't edited many articles recently. You said there were unnamed things on your Talk page but I don't see anything relevant except for his gracious and unanswered solicitation for your guidance. I am just stumped by your vagueness and apparent abandonment, and I can hardly even decipher your words. It sounds like he made a very basic newbie mistake in the world that Wikipedians are all recruited and thrown into with no training, plus maybe a coincidence with some other abuse that you were investigating from someone else. What am I missing? Did you run a checkuser to compare C1K98V's IP address or any other sort of test? Did you get busy or why did you disappear and never answer anyone? C1K98V has been very earnest and may want to list some recent productive contributions to Commons and wikidata, and propose some exact new edits to Wikipedia in order to demonstrate non-infraction and competency. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 11:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I listed a few articles for copyvio on the CCI I requested for the user. Also, my talkpage section I was talking about was User_talk:AmandaNP#Sony_Sab_'s_TV_series_"Kaatelaal_&_Sons" vs. User_talk:AmandaNP#Kaatelal_&_Sons where I deleted it before for G5. They also recreated one by the same sockmaster Hero – Gayab Mode On after I G5'd the draft. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

De728631, As for the CCI, I would like to say that, the article Hero which I created was when the show was on air. I didn't knew anything about sockmaster or the afd of the article see [2]. If I had known I would have surely tried to follow the policy. Regarding the Katelaal & sons, I accept that I didn't write in my own words and tried doing paraphrasing. About the third article listed their, I just fixed the cast section with sourcing and used refill tool. And for the last article please have a look at my discussion [3]. That's all what I did in the last month before getting blocked. I'm not doing any paid editing, or aware of any sockmaster. Thank you C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

We're now 27 days since the original block. A summary of what I've seen so far:

• Amanda provided no warnings.
• Amanda blocked indefinitely for copyvios. Amanda claimed this was necessary due to how egregious it was.
• Amanda has been asked for evidence including diffs several times.
• Amanda has provided only articles, not diffs as requested.
• Amanda provided at least one article where there was no copyvio (Yeh Jawani Ta Ra Ri Ri). A cursory look at the history of others leaves it doubtful about how bad it was also.
• Amanda has given vague statements about sockpuppetry without much evidence.
• Amanda never indicated she ran a checkuser.

Given the OP's contrition, the input from the other administrators, the positive contribution from this user across projects (10K+ x-wiki edits), consensus here seems to be that the block was excessive.

Since Amanda never indicated this is a {{checkuserblock}}, it is within my power to review, and I have accepted the unblock request. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, C1K98V. Last year, you were blocked for copyright violations. I recognize that that block was overturned as excessive, but I also note that at least four copyright violations were found. After you contacted me regarding Pri2000's allegations against you of copyright violation, I devoted a fair amount of time to looking through your recent edits and seeing if Pri2000 is correct. I found:

• Special:Diff/1085734395 to Gud Se Meetha Ishq, on 2 May, copies verbatim from [4], cached 30 April
• Special:DIff/1085739822 to Woh Toh Hai Albelaa, also on 2 May, copies verbatim from [5], cached 6 April
• Special:Diff/1085748322 to Qubool Hai, also on 2 May, copies verbatim from [6], cached a mere 15 hours later. Given that the site in question seems to be pulling from an official feed, I see it as very unlikely that someone there copied from the article in those 15 hours.

TV listing plot summaries are usually only indexed by Google if it happens to crawl a page of plot listings at the right time. As such, I don't take the absence of results when Googling other plot summaries as evidence that they are original to you. Rather, the fact that all of the plot summaries you add use the same vague teaser-y tone ubiquitous in TV listings for Indian soap operas (e.g. "Later, Krishna is left shocked when he witnesses something unexpected") leads me to the conclusion that most or all are copied or closely paraphrased from official listings. This is supported by some evidence I've found of close paraphrasing, like Special:Diff/1085739898 vs. [7].

I know you've said you're writing these from scratch. Maybe you're not intending to copy anything. Maybe you're trying to loosely paraphrase and instead copying outright by accident on occasion. Indian soap opera episode summaries are so formulaic that I can see how that might happen. But, regardless of intent, it's clear that you are violating copyrights, either by verbatim copying or close paraphrasing, and I see no reason to think it's limited to those three cases that happen to turn up in Google's cache.

You are a net-positive to this project, and I do not want to see you get copyright-blocked, but it's clear to me that you are unable to write plot summaries without infringing copyrights. As such, I am taking the following actions:

• I am removing all episode plot summaries from the shows linked above, and once you've had the chance to respond to this will RD1 revdel them.
• I'll be moving to reopen the CCI, since my review here has been far from thorough.
• You may consider this a final warning for copyright violations. I would strongly encourage you to simply not edit plot summaries going forward, since it seems to be where your weakness lies. I don't want to block a constructive contributor, but if I see you posting copyvio plot summaries again, I'm not sure I'll really have a choice.

I understand that this is an unpleasant message to receive, and it brings me no joy to leave it. I hope that you will take my words to heart, and focus more on other areas of your editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Tamzin - I reviewed Special:Diff/1085739898 vs. source, and I don't see the copyvio? In the diff, C1K98V adds, "On the auspicious occasion of Holi, the Choudharys perform a puja. However, the family is unaware of the imminent threat". When I navigate to the source and look through the summary on episode 2 (where the summary is added), not only is it completely different, but I don't see that summary (I searched through the page for the word 'auspicious') anywhere. Can you point me to what I may be missing? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Oshwah: Sorry, my mistake. It's in one of the thumbnails, but I should have linked to the actual page for that episode: "On the occasion of Holi, the Choudharys perform a puja at the temple, unaware of lurking danger!". (As to why that's in episode 1 according to Apple TV but episode 2 in the summaries C1K added, I don't know.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Tamzin - I dunno, man (not assuming gender lol)... "On the auspicious occasion of Holi, the Choudharys perform a puja. However, the family is unaware of the imminent threat" (diff) vs "Meet Krishna and his loving brothers, Chiranjeev and Nakul. On the occasion of Holi, the Choudharys perform a puja at the temple, unaware of lurking danger" (source), the only exact match between the two is "Holi, the Choudharys perform a puja". That... could be argued, but I tend to look at the context as a whole in these regards. The first sentence from the source isn't used at all in the diff. The second sentence adds "auspicious" and "at the temple". Okay, that could be argued that the user took that sentence from the source and added these things. I'm... on the fence... about whether or not that could constitute a copyvio, leaning "no" in my opinion. The last sentence (in the diff, or the second sentence after the comma in the source) seems okay to me. My take is that C1K98V probably did use these summaries as a base and reference when writing these summaries, but copyvio? My thoughts here regarding that example (if I can express it with words... lol) is "....ehhhhh... *shrugs one shoulder a few times*". I think that close paraphrasing can be defined as, "if we can tell that this is probably where you got this information (by adding words, adding to the sentence, etc), then it's close paraphrasing", and this does fit. I can definitely say that a good general rule that constitutes copyvio is direct copypasta. Meh... I dunno. Is this the only instance where this is found? Is there more? Are there any "smoking guns"? What are your thoughts regarding this example? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Oshwah: Perhaps you missed the start of my comment? I linked to three verbatim copyvios. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Tamzin Yeah, I did - just haven't looked yet. Those first two questions were dumb, since you obviously have already posted other examples in your original statement. ;-) They are now stricken out. The last question still stands in regards to your thoughts/beliefs. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mean to suggest that that one case of close paraphrasing was, on its own, that remarkable; I'm sure we've all been guilty of that from time to time. My point is that it solidified my concern that, where these plot summaries aren't copied outright, they may in many cases be close paraphrases. That's on top of the tone-based evidence I pointed to. Hemantha also comments on close paraphrasing here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 07:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Oshwah You are wrong, close paraphrasing is still a copyright violation. Something does not need to be directly copied from a source to be a copyright violation. Please read Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing#Concepts and Wikipedia:Copying_text_from_other_sources#Can_I_copy_if_I_change_the_text_a_little_bit?. Yes, close paraphrasing may not be as blatant as a direct paste, and is it harder to avoid, but it still needs to be avoided and cleaned up after. Cleaning them up can take just as much time (if not more) than cleaning up a "regular" copyright violation. Your responses here call back to our exchange at User_talk:Amkgp/Archive_19#What's_going_on_here?, where your views on what constitutes a copyright violation were similarly wrong. I understand that you want to help your friends out when they're in a rough spot, but you repeating misconceptions about copyright violations just makes the issue worse. When coming to the defense in situations like this in the future, it might be a better idea to help the user instead of claiming the blocking admin is in the wrong. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Moneytrees Hello, I hope your're doing well. I also want to my help in investigating the case against me. I know its against the policy, is there any way that I can also contribute and lend my support. Thanks. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 23:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

If you could rewrite or remove anything you know is problematic, or otherwise point out any issues, it would be appreciated. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Moneytrees: I will definitely look into my contribution, pages created and fix wherever there is any problematic edits by me, or concern raised by others. I'm giving you the assurance. Thank you for responding to me. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 04:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Tamzin, I take all this in good faith, and I still stand by my comment, I take full responsibility of my edits. Since, I was unblocked I never intent to do copyvio, copypaste, paraphrase, and I don't intend to do so previously now or in the coming future. You have my words I will co-operate with the community throughout the investigations and I know the consequences of this. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 06:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oshwah I came here after seeing the C1K98V was re-opened. I just want to echo what Money said. PLEASE don't repeat or "spread" incorrect info about copyvios. Especially coming from someone like you osh, I have a high degree of trust in you, and I would assume many other editors do too. Imagine an editor saw this and started close paraphrasing because you said I can definitely say that a good general rule that constitutes copyvio is direct copypasta. They would go "oshwah didn't say close paraphrasing is bad, so I can probably do it!" A better rule is "If it's too closely related to the source, then it's a copyvio." I know you were defending a friend but I would stay away from commenting on any copyvio related, IF you aren't 100% sure what you're talking about. Feel free to ask me questions about this kind of stuff, you know where to find me! Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 15:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The4lines, Moneytrees - ACK! Sorry! That sentence (and that response) was edited, pasted, re-arranged, and moved around and it came out incomplete and totally wrong. YES! Close paraphrasing is not okay at all. That sentence is striken out! And of course to disclose, I've been working with this user and mentoring them a lot, but I am absolutely here with a neutral mindset. It would be unfair to myself, you, and the project if I had any other mindset. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Moneytrees - Oh, and to respond to your above statement - I apologize greatly if you interpreted my response to think that I was trying to say that you were wrong. I was just trying to look at the evidence and voice thoughts. Looking at my response above, I remember being quite tired when I wrote it. Probably not a good time for me to wiki when I just get done with a very long workday. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Oshwah: Yeah, don't worry about it too much, everyone makes mistakes :). Good to hear that you are mentoring C1K98V. Best! Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 02:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Oshwah Ok. I forgive you. (Sorry for a slow response, I have been very busy recently.) Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate that, C1K. Like I said, I think if you just steer clear of plot summaries going forward, that would be a lot better both for you and the project. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello all, @Tamzin, Moneytrees, and MER-C: Good day. I hope all doing great. As stated, above by MT "If you could rewrite or remove anything you know is problematic, or otherwise point out any issues, it would be appreciated", on the basis of Precautionary principle, I would like to assume and remove episode table from 2 article Dhadkan Zindaggi Kii, India's Ultimate Warrior. Based on the input given by Tamzin and Moneytrees I investigated my contributions, do have a look here User:C1K98V/CCI. Rest all my contributions are clean and most of them rollback edits, sourcing, creation and expansion of article. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 05:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

And I even asked for assistance from @DanCherek to cleanup the reception section of DZK. They are really quick and knowledgeable editor. Thanks for the help --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 05:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

C1K98V, are you saying that you copied the episode summaries in those two articles from somewhere else? If so, can you identify the source? DanCherek (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@DanCherek: Not like I have copied it from any source. But if you see the above discussion, something like "EPG" and the episode table created by me have everything similar. I'm not aware of EPG, why and how does it work, but from past mistakes I'm aware that reverse copyvio also happens. But after the Apple EPG link shared by Tamzin I started doubting myself. The article I listed above is in response to Moneytrees who believed in me, and gave a chance to help out in cleanup and rewrite and remove problematic edits. I only intend to do here is constructive editing, creation, expanding article, working with images and wikidata items. As the Dhadkan page history states I'm the page creator and I have expanded it, I would like to assume WP:Precautionary principle and remove the episode table, same for the other article which I expanded. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 17:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm very glad you are interested in helping out with the copyright cleanup, but I'm still a little confused. It's true that we sometimes presumptively remove text, often in cases where the source is offline or otherwise difficult to access, or if there's another reason to suspect that it was copied from somewhere. But I'm not sure why you're asking for the summaries in those two articles to be removed if you are also saying that you didn't copy them from anywhere. By contrast, in the few examples that Tamzin gave, you did apparently copy plot summaries from somewhere else, given that they appeared on other websites prior to you adding them to Wikipedia. That's not reverse copyvio. DanCherek (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

See I'm also very confused and doubtful, after what I came to know about the apple link and EPG thing. I have the patience, but, I can't see admin efforts and time are getting wasted, as they have much more productive work to do here. Already thier alot of evidences stated above against me based on that presumptive deletion should be done on the article which I listed as I have created or expanded it. Rest I can assure you, the articles, edits listed on the CCI page are clean. Thank you. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 00:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The CCI has now been finished. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Moneytrees, I value your time and efforts, grateful you believed in me, I assure, I wont do any such kind of mistake ever again. Thank you for your consideration. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 05:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi C1K98V. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello C1K98V,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello C1K98V, Monhiroe (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Monhiroe (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Monhiroe (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Monhiroe, I appreciate and value your efforts in expanding the reception section. Thank you for your contribution. Enjoy the day :) C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 05:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello C1K98V,

 

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello C1K98V,

 

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

 

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi C1K98V, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 19:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
• The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

 

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

 

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

 

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply