Kwamikagami
Bergabung 14 Juni 2008
Konten dihapus Konten ditambahkan
Kwamikagami (bicara | kontrib) →Hi, again: Balas |
Kwamikagami (bicara | kontrib) →Planet symbols: Balas |
||
| (37 revisi perantara oleh 4 pengguna tidak ditampilkan) | |||
Baris 79:
::::::::What that quote means is that, if you are one of the authors of the article, or if you're the one who recently improved it (that is, you're following the instructions above), you can nominate it for GA. However, if you're not one of the authors -- if you just come across an article and think, "that should be a GA" but didn't improve it yourself, then you shouldn't nominate it until you check with the authors. They might have other plans for it. [[Pengguna:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Kwamikagami#top|bicara]]) 11 November 2022 18.47 (UTC)
:::::::::Thank you. I will try my best. [[Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|bicara]]) 12 November 2022 13.07 (UTC)
=== GA and FA system and reviewing difference ===
Hi. I would like to ask again, since it is related to this topic. I wonder why the system of GA reviewing (and nominating) are totally different than other Wikipedia, such as WBI (<u>W</u>ikipedia <u>B</u>ahasa <u>I</u>ndonesia), in here, where the GA could only be obtained by three vote support, or literally agree, and the FA could only at least one reviewer? For some reason, IMO, WE (<u>W</u>ikipedia <u>E</u>nglish) has a somewhat unique system. [[Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|bicara]]) 17 Januari 2023 14.03 (UTC)
:I'm not familiar with GA or FA on other wikis. On WP-en, you can nominate your own articles. Whether anyone will vote for GA or FA is another question, of course. [[Pengguna:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Kwamikagami#top|bicara]]) 17 Januari 2023 17.48 (UTC)
== Hi, again ==
Baris 88 ⟶ 93:
::I was trying to figure out the policy which related to this case, but I have no idea where it is. I can only think it is related to WP:CANVASSING. [[Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|bicara]]) 30 November 2022 06.21 (UTC)
:::I don't see anything you did that violated policy. The problem seems to be that you don't understand some of the English, which makes it difficult for you to evaluate the article. Whether people will accept your review or reject it I don't know, but there's no ''policy'' violation that I see. [[Pengguna:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Kwamikagami#top|bicara]]) 30 November 2022 06.28 (UTC)
::::Well, if it's not, then I must be overworried for what I did. Sorry. [[Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|bicara]]) 30 November 2022 06.31 (UTC)
== Witch of Agnesi ==
@[[Pengguna:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] I would like to revert both edits since it is already cited in a body article in [[:en:Witch of Agnesi|Witch of Agnesi]]. But, I haven't found another reason before I revert it. Can you help me a little? Thanks. [[Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|bicara]]) 9 Desember 2022 16.25 (UTC)
:I don't know which edits you're referring to, or where. But it's an editorial decision how much detail to include in a summary and what to leave for the main article. If you think the summary is excessive, it's fine to trim it down. [[Pengguna:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Kwamikagami#top|bicara]]) 9 Desember 2022 20.26 (UTC)
::Edits: [https://en.wiki-indonesia.club/w/index.php?title=Witch_of_Agnesi&oldid=1122392921] and [https://en.wiki-indonesia.club/w/index.php?title=Witch_of_Agnesi&oldid=1125928532]. [[Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|bicara]]) 10 Desember 2022 01.01 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure I understand. You wouldn't delete 'citation needed' tags unless you provide a citation, and the other edit reads as an improvement IMO. [[Pengguna:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Kwamikagami#top|bicara]]) 10 Desember 2022 01.07 (UTC)
::::Do I have to report this to GA author? I am not sure if it's appropriate to add citation needed in the lead, and some copyedit minor in the body article as well. IMO, it is already explained in the body article, which is in [[:en:Witch of Agnesi#Early studies|#Early studies]]. [[Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|bicara]]) 10 Desember 2022 01.14 (UTC)
:::::Oh, I see what you mean. You're correct: no need for a citation in the lead. You can just delete the tag. And the other edit too makes little difference either way, so go ahead and revert it. If they disagree, that's what the talk page is for.
:::::There's little problem with reverting edits to GA and FA articles. The articles have already been judged to be in good shape the way they are, so you can just revert with an edit summary of "not an improvement" or "not needed" etc. [[Pengguna:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Kwamikagami#top|bicara]]) 10 Desember 2022 01.20 (UTC)
::::::What about the second edit which I gave it to you? My native is not English, and I think it is unnecessary to add paranthesis, IMO. [[Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|bicara]]) 10 Desember 2022 01.24 (UTC)
:::::::That's what I meant by "the other edit". It's fine to revert it. [[Pengguna:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Kwamikagami#top|bicara]]) 10 Desember 2022 01.25 (UTC)
== GA Module ==
Hi, @[[Pengguna:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]]. Just want to tell you that I was trying to apply [[Modul:Good article topics]] in one of the lists of [[WP:APT|featured articles]] and [[WP:ABT|good articles]] topics here, but I am somewhat confused that it gives an error, featuring as follows:
: {{#invoke:Good articles|subsection|}} (Script error: No such module "Good articles")
I also requested someone else, but they didn't understand either; and I also created {{tl|invoke}}, but it didn't really work at all. Perhaps you are the only one who can understand this problem. You can report the results on my talk page, or here, or the talk page of FA and GA topics; and I think it is okay to speak English. Regards, [[Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|bicara]]) 25 Desember 2022 14.09 (UTC)
:Sorry, I don't see anything obviously wrong. I won't have time today. If you can ping me tomorrow to remind me, I'll have another look. [[Pengguna:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Kwamikagami#top|bicara]]) 25 Desember 2022 23.07 (UTC)
::Thank you, but I have to say that I am truly sorry since it is already been fixed by other editors. You can still fix it if there is another errors of the module, if you have a time. Regards, [[Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|bicara]]) 26 Desember 2022 00.03 (UTC)
== Copyvio ==
Hello, @[[Pengguna:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]]. It's good to see you at this night. I want to question something. Is there any limitation to the percentage of copyvio similarity in Wikipedia English guidelines? In Wikipedia English, I didn't see any strong copyvio at some title references in an article—except quotes only for some cases (example [[:en:2b2t|2b2t]], which is 28.6% similarity). However, as for Wikipedia Bahasa Indonesia, there are some cases where the article has similarities in title references (examples [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=id&project=wikipedia&title=Greg+Moore+%28pembalap%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Greg Moore]) which is supposed, logically, could be a violation of plagiarism. [[Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|bicara]]) 4 Mei 2023 17.09 (UTC)
:I've not heard of anyone using automated comparisons for copyvio on WP-en. People normally make a personal comparison. They might use a scan to detect suspicious articles to check, but I haven't heard of any being reported for only that. [[Pengguna:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Kwamikagami#top|bicara]]) 4 Mei 2023 19.17 (UTC)
::Hmm... I guess I've misunderstand about it. Could you tell me how the copyvio tools works? Also, I thought [[:en:WP:COPYVIO|WP:COPYVIO]] states that "even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism;" and if any of the article has smallest of similarity, that could be violation because of copyright. Did I miss something here? [[Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|bicara]]) 5 Mei 2023 07.00 (UTC)
:::No, that's correct. I've just never heard of someone claiming that an article is copyvio because of a certain percentage similarity according to a bot. But then, I've never used the copyvio tools. [[Pengguna:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Kwamikagami#top|bicara]]) 5 Mei 2023 07.03 (UTC)
::::However, doesn't it matter if a (GA or FA) article has similarity (even thought it is small percentage) in Wikipedia English? [[Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|bicara]]) 5 Mei 2023 09.49 (UTC)
:::::Sometimes there are only a few good ways to word something, so people will independently come up with approximately the same wording. That's not plagiarism. In fact, sometimes it's very difficult to ''not'' sound like the source, because any change of their wording will sound bad. The copy-vio people understand this, and will accept it. You don't need to distort the prose into gibberish just to avoid sounding like your sources. For example, if you wrote, "John Doe was born in 1956 and died in 1968", that wouldn't be copyvio just because someone else used the same words. How else are you expected to say it?
:::::That's the difference between people and a bot: a bot may flag it as very similar, but human review will realize that that's how almost anyone would word it. The point is to not copy ''creative'' wording.
:::::There is something similar with images. For example, imagine that you create an image of the letter 'C' from your own handwriting. No matter how you write it, it's going to look like someone else's letter 'C'. That's not copyvio. You don't have to distort it into some bizarre shape just to make it unique: There's no creativity in making a simple 'C' shape.
:::::Now compare the letters ABC in this image:
::::::[[File:1905 BCA logo for wiki article.jpg|50px]]
:::::There is creativity there. If you copied that off someone, that would count as copyvio. [[Pengguna:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Kwamikagami#top|bicara]]) 5 Mei 2023 10.03 (UTC)
::::::Thank you. I now understand about the copyvio and some other things that related to copyvio as well. [[Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|bicara]]) 5 Mei 2023 15.47 (UTC)
== CS1 and CS2 ==
Hi. I want to ask, that I confused about CS1 and CS2. Why are these citation style exist, especially in Wikipedia English? Is there any reason or history about the usage of citation style differently? In Wikipedia English, there are two different citation styles, and the guidelines such as [[:en:WP:CITEVAR|WP:CITEVAR]] prevented to change without seeking discussion first. [[Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|bicara]]) 8 Mei 2023 17.07 (UTC)
:No idea. I would assume it reflects differences in the literature and difference in how editors were taught in school, and that they have not been able to come to agreement on a universal standard. CS1 uses periods and CS2 commas. You can also used CS1 with "mode=cs2". Personally, I prefer the latter, and I suspect that personal preference all this is. [[Pengguna:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Kwamikagami#top|bicara]]) 8 Mei 2023 21.30 (UTC)
::Got it. Thanks. [[Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|Dedhert.Jr]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Dedhert.Jr|bicara]]) 9 Mei 2023 06.00 (UTC)
== Planet symbols ==
Hello Kwamikagami, I noticed that you added a number of images of planetary and satellite symbols right in the lead paragraphs of planetary articles. Honestly, this isn't great. Apart from the fact that the appearance will be disturbed, this will also trigger other users to suspect you of [[WP:HIPERBOLIS|hyperbolizing]] in Wikipedia articles. Images should not be placed in any paragraph unless it is absolutely necessary, for example in articles on mathematics topics such as [[Limas persegi|Square pyramid]] and the like, even if they use a separate template. Maybe you brought a precedent from other language Wikipedias, so I would say that Indonesian Wikipedia is certainly not the same as other editions of Wikipedia. Once again, I ask for your cooperation to stop this. Thank You. ▪ <span style="font-size:85%;"><sup>꧋[[Istimewa:Kontribusi/Fazoffic|ꦩꦣꦪ.]]</sup></span> '''[[Pengguna:Fazoffic|<span style="color:#3D6D69;">Fazoffic</span>]]'''<sub> ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Fazoffic|<span style="color:#0055FF;"> ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ</span>]])</sub> 19 Februari 2024 10.38 (UTC)
:Of course, Fazoffic. Pardon for the inconvenience.
:I reverted myself at [[Venus]] dan [[Ceres]], which you appear to have missed. [[Pengguna:Kwamikagami|Kwamikagami]] ([[Pembicaraan Pengguna:Kwamikagami#top|bicara]]) 19 Februari 2024 19.12 (UTC)
| |||