Archives

2020 • 2021 • 2022

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]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 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]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For poking me about the deletion of Neha Pendse, which allowed me to discover that it had been deleted mistakenly after a comedy of errors. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, C1K98V. You said that the subject of my article (Hasbulla Magomedov), does "not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". In the sources I provided, to me it seems like they do, since all of the articles are about him. I am just a beginner editor, so I just wanted to know what your thought process was in not approving my article, rather than complaining about the fact it wasn't approved. I also wanted to point out that other social media stars with significantly less following have been written about on WP, for example British instagrammer Francis Bourgeois, and I have used sources from the same sites as him. I feel that since he is from the West, he has more "mainstream" sources writing about him, however Hasbulla does not speak English, so that detriments him. The fact that the subject is not from the West should not mean that he doesn't get on wikipedia, right? However, thanks for taking the time to look over my article! Mjcgonzalez02 (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding non-English reviews, they are acceptable for WP:GNG so as this film has multiple reviews in Bengali and at least one in English it is likely to be kept at AfD. Therefore I would avise against AfD, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306:, Yes, I'm aware of it. Atleast two reviews from reliable sources should be there. I have pinged DaxServer, Pinakpani and even I have posted at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics to hear, from other editors. I dont mind tagging the article for AFD to get community consensus, I might do that in a day or two. Thanks, stay safe. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 10:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with starting an AfD and would certainly vote keep Atlantic306 (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any bengali language editor you're aware of, while reviewing article you came across who can assist. However, tagging for AFD is a last resort always. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 10:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, C1K98V. AIV is for vandalism, not disagreements with other editors. Please see WP:NOTVANDALISM. If you have concerns about how another editor is treating you, the best thing to do is reach out to them and express those concerns politely, diplomatically, and constructively. If that doesn't work, then there is WP:AN/I. But if you do take this matter to AN/I, you need to provide clear evidence (in the form of diffs) of the other editor violating Wikipedia policies or guidelines, as well as evidence that your attempts at dispute resolution have failed.

I hope that helps. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:06, 10 May 2022 (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]