User talk:Fantasticfears

Google Summer of Code

I'm sorry that this is in English.

You're running out of time to apply for Google Summer of Code! Please see Where to start. I won't be watching this talkpage for response -- if you need help, please ask the chat channel (IRC) or the mailing list.Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for IP block exemtion

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

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

Request reason:

Request for IP block exemption. I'm a Chinese wikipedian. Direct connection may be affected by GFW, so I usually access wikimedia projects by proxy. --Fantasticfears (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

IP block exemption granted. See below. Singularity42 (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need a lot more information before granting an IP block exemption. What is the block message you are recieving when you try to edit? Also, given the infrequent editing by this account, I am still not sure I would grant an IP block exemption. Singularity42 (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block message: Editing from 198.199.64.0/18 has been blocked (disabled) by LFaraone. The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because the IP range you are editing from is a web host provider. I own a DigitalOcean VPS for proxy and this IP is blocked unfortunately. Please check this SUL info. I'm a patroller and rollbacker in zhwiki_p. I hope that would prove some point.--Fantasticfears (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying. Can you read through WP:IPEXEMPTCONDITIONS and confirm you agree with all of the conditions? Singularity42 (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not eligible for this condition. Nonetheless, I have to clarify my purpose for applying. Currently, I visit all wikimedia projects by a commercial proxy(subscribe) or my own private proxy(Digital Ocean VPS). If not so, I may be disrupted by PRC Great Firewall of China, not enwiki_p local IP block. That's why I want to apply for exemption. Thanks for your patience.--Fantasticfears (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. I understand that you have to edit from a proxy to edit from China. What I meant was whether you understood and agreed with the remainder of the conditions. Singularity42 (talk) 13:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree.--Fantasticfears (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Singularity42 (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the standard wording regarding proxy-use should be modified due to your need to use a proxy to edit from China. Singularity42 (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

test echo

mw:Echo/Testing--Fantasticfearstest (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #19071 was submitted on Aug 25, 2017 07:18:34. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Asian Month 2017 at Sinhala Wikipedia

Reference Wikipedia Asian Month 2017 at Sinhala Wikipedia do yo assist in judging articles submitted by the sole organizer who is currently the sole contributor? Are you capable of judging articles written in Sinhala Language? What is your competency level in Sinhala? ---- Shwetha (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply you on m:Talk:Wikipedia_Asian_Month_2017#Wikipedia_Asian_Month_2017_in_Sinhala_Wikipedia.--Fantasticfears (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments here. --- Shwetha (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

zkdjfbbvid

Gjdjfjc..ln. 46)ud  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.119.183 (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Asia Month

Have edited the article on Frederick Charles Loos and it now complies with the criteria however I am unable to resubmit it (as per your notes). Can you re-assess it - thanks. Dan arndt (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: The restriction is lifted. Please resubmit it again :)--Fantasticfears (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve tried but the system won’t let me resubmit, stating ′′You have already added this article to the editathon′′. Any suggestions? Dan arndt (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: Delete your previous submission and submit it again. The article itself should be created in Nov.--Fantasticfears (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you go about deleting the submission? Dan arndt (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The article ... should be properly copyedited"

Hey, you passed the article Rumah limas for WAM, but at the time you did the article had a big Template:Grammar check tag on it, and contained prominent errors like The article covers the specific limas house of Palembang and Modernism revival, and more detailed examination (beyond the lead and table of contents reveals

sentences like Rules that apply to the construction of a limas house is elaborate and important. and The first steps is the choice of its location, pekarangan (yard or compound), and its orientation.,
spelling errors like cna be found,
odd repetitive writing like The abolition of the Sultanate by the Dutch in 1823 means that the former nobility lost both power and wealth, leaving their descendants unable to maintain the house. As a result, many limas houses have deteriorated and disappeared. being almost immediately followed by the near-identical {{tq|With the abolishment of the sultanate by the Dutch in 1823 many of the former nobility lost both power and wealth, leaving most of their descendants unable to maintain the houses. As a result, many limas houses have fallen into disrepair or have disappeared altogether,

and so on.

I know my own WAM entries are not perfect (I wouldn't be surprised if you rejected the accidental content-fork Kani Kōsen, for example~~; some acknowledgement of the ping would be nice though~~), but I would honestly prefer that judges strictly enforced the rules on everyone equally. Otherwise, those who work hard to follow them can't compete with those who carelessly churn out ungrammatical messes.

Also pinging User:Titodutta, who rejected an article with a copy edit tag but accepted almost the same article, containing the same grammatical errors, several times when it wasn't tagged.[1][2]

I feel really uncomfortable as a WAM participant to be tagging other participants' entries so that the articles' creators will put the effort in to fix them (or, worse, so that the judges will notice the articles' problems), as it feels like it goes against the spirit of WAM to be "undermining the competition" rather than focusing on one's own articles. But it really isn't fair when some contributors are following the rules to the letter and it works against their prospects of getting the top spot because other contributors are actively ignoring the rules and getting their articles passed anyway.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply on your talk. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri 88: Thanks for bringing this topic up. Honestly, I wouldn't be comfortable in judging articles in the first place since I'm not an active member in English Wikipedia. But here I am. And actually I've given green light to almost all entries with copyedit as long as they fit notability criteria and have references. How many errors I should tolerate to accept an entry? I don't know. But I know someone has put a lot of effort to write. And the topic of Asian articles are rare to find and references are precious which outweigh grammar issues in my mind. As you said, not all WAM entries are perfect and some of they are unfortunately deleted. I would still encourage new editors to try and encourage them to learn mistakes from a series of errors. That's also my way into Wikipedia. Anyhow, as a campaign growing more mature, it's also time to make it more professional for experienced editors. I would consider to set more restriction like no more than 3 maintenance templates in all submissions to be considered as WAM Ambassador. In this way, there is a chance to take the rule word by word and ask participants to focus on quality as well.--Fantasticfears (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So ... what you are saying is you didn't properly enforce the WAM rules, and had you done so I would have got the top spot instead Rochelimit (whose articles had not only serious copy editing problems (a direct violation of one of the rules) but at least one even had obvious copyright issues, including a large volume of plagiarized text. It's a serious question whether a user who repeatedly inserts unsourced text, nonsense citations of sources that don't verify the text, and copy-pasted text without clarification that it is quoted should be allowed edit at all, but granting them the top spot in an editathon after such concerns have already been raised with the articles they entered in the editathon is a really bad idea.

I actually wouldn't be that bothered about losing the top spot were Rochelimit not revenge-hounding me for tagging his articles, but I seriously think that if all the concerns I have about this editor's behaviour (removing maintenance tags without explanation, copy-pasting text from multiple sources onto Wikipedia without attribution, dealing with V issues by adding nonsense citations that do not verify the content, hounding, recruiting meatpuppets off-wiki to help him with on-wiki disputes, and engaging in evasive/deceptive dodging of questions when questioned about any of the above) were brought before the community they would probably be blocked.

You are right about how the rules need to be made more clear, but I don't think a "3 maintenance tags disqualification" would be the best solution, as there would be nothing stopping editors like Rochelimit[3][4] (and IM3847 and Ernestchuajiasheng) from spitefully tagging the articles of other contributors for no reason other than their wanting to undermine their WAM contributions. I actually didn't notice most of the tagging for several days, since I was adding new articles at such a pace, many of them being checked over and receiving minor good-faith edits, that I was ignoring most of my watchlist notifications for the last month and a half. Rather, I think unapologetic adding of needless maintenance tags (like Template:One source to articles that cite one very good source and do not have obvious accuracy or neutrality concerns or Template:Refimprove and Template:Original research to an article because it doesn't include redundant WP:LEDECITEs) should disqualify one from receiving the WAM Ambassador spot, while having three justifiable maintenance tags that one has refused or otherwise failed to address should also be a disqualifier.

Anyway, it's water under the bridge. We'll see if Rochelimit apologizes for his misbehaviour and promises to do better going forward.

And for what it's worth, I'm probably the en.wiki 2017 WAM contributor who has been the most consistently active editor on en.wiki over the past five years, and would happily act as one of the judges next year, just as long as I didn't have to judge any entries during the editathon since I would be busy focusing on my own.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this is the second time I haven't noticed your response to me until too late, because you mis-pinged me. My username is "Hijiri88"; "Hijiri 88" is just my signature. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 Apologies for the late response. I have been away from judging WAM articles, as I have been told that no more judge were required at the moment. On having seen your comments now, I am chipping in my view. I see the fundamental copy-edit issues on the article Rumah limas that have been amended since the competition. These are ones that could be rectified by an AWB run or a careful writing of the article. The errors were, however, not as much as to reject the complete article, which was much longer than the minimum required to qualify for WAM. There are, however, apparent issues with Ayudha katti, which if I were judging, would have disqualified due to plagiarism and poor citations. I do not fret much on copy-edits (although a very poorly copy-editing would raise questions, but Rumas limas does not fall under this category to me). Agreeing to Fantasticfears, I would expect experienced editors to avoid such mistakes, but Rochelimit seems experienced enough to have avoided copy-editing issues, plagiarism, and poor citations. I would have accepted the former article, but would have not accepted the latter one. Please let me know if I have missed anything, or you agree/disagree to me. Having rules clear and explicit would avoid such mistakes in the future, but keeping them explicit enough for qualitative matters such as the perfection of the copy-edits (be they restricted to even a few spelling errors) would be highly difficult to impossible. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I have submit an article named State Bank of Pakistan Museum & Art Gallery to Wikipedia Asian Month. Now here is a problem that I have changed my username wisalahmad523 > Wisal Ahmad. So please merge all my submitted articles to one either Wisal Ahmad or wisalahmad523. Thanks! Wisal Ahmad (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]