K.Kapil77
Hello, K.Kapil77, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
- Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
- Check out some of these pages:
- If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
- Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
- In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
- Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
- Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like
<ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing). - In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
- If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
December 2020
edit
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Anarchism, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. czar 07:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
July 2021
edit
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/K.Kapil77. I did not initiate the investigation, however I did come across the investigation so I am alerting you here. TGHL ↗ 🍁 04:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. - TheresNoTime 😺 18:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
K.Kapil77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please Check edits being made from this account are actually constructive : [[1]] and [[2]] and [[3]] and [[4]] and [[5]]. From around 250 edits a finger-countable were reverted. Which clearly suggests I have never made any disruptive edits. Please unblock my account and I assure you all the incoming changes would be even more appreciable. Thanks! K.Kapil77 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your appeal completely fails to address the actual reason for your block, which is abuse of multiple accounts. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
K.Kapil77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked for having multiple accounts of which one was this original account User:K.Kapil77, another was a bot request account User:K.Kapil77 Bot which definitely doesn’t fall under sockpuppetry or misuse of multiple accounts as its a part of process. Another account I recognise is User:Kapil121 which I did use improperly, a small error in my Bot code has caused usage of wrong account on wrong data, and was banned a long time back. Since then I have not violated any rules and always contributed positively. As you see in my account as well as Bot I always include my name. At the same time, I am using a common server(obviously need computing power to handle 180GB of extracted Wikipedia XML Dump on which the bot was based). So its high chance any other reported accounts might have same IPs. Also my code for bot was available open source so that explains similarity in the nature of edits. Please unblock my User:K.Kapil77 having said that I am not participating in any vandalism of misuse and won’t be doing in future. K.Kapil77 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
K.Kapil77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi, from my previous 2 unblock requests considered together, I do believe that the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead. (as seen in my first request) Please consider this request again since this account is really important for me. The mentioned points in this particular request are in-line with the unblocking policy and were already from my previous two requests. Please let me know if any particular additional thing/information is required to get this account running. Thanks K.Kapil77 (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Below, you seem to be making the claim that 15% of your contributions were constructive and that's good. It's not, it's absolutely abysmal. I think you need to get experience on another project, then come back here and show you were able to achieve far, far, far closer to 100% constructive edits. There's no way we will consider unblocking someone if the vast majority of their edits aren't constructive. Nor have you addressed BestEditorIsBack. You'll want to take at least six months. Yamla (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Just briefly addressing the claims in the first unblock request - that you should be unblocked because the edits coming out of this account are constructive: of those 5 examples you provide the third one is wrong - you changed the French name of a French king to it's English translation, and in the context of "he inherited the French throne under the name ..." the original French spelling was correct. Edits 4 and 5 left broken link syntax (See WP:NOPIPE) and had to be cleaned up by another bot [6] [7]. So of the 5 sample edits you gave 60% of them were either wrong or required someone else to clean up after you.
I spent about an hour last night going through about 20 ish edits from your bot, and about half of them were so egregiously wrong that I reverted them. Some examples of the kind of mistakes it was making
- [8] Changing the spelling of a musical composition when the composer used the spelling "Typhaon" as the title of their work.
- [9] Changing the spelling used in a direct quotation from a source. Both spellings are valid and you should not change direct quotations even if they contain mistakes.
- [10] Changing the name of a town from it's historic name to the name it adopted in the 1950's, when it was being discussed in the context of stuff that was happening 300 years ago
- [11] Changing someone's name from their full, formal name "Sir Steven Redgrave" to a bizarre combination of their formal name and informal nickname, resulting in "Sir Steve"
- [12] Changing the American spelling "Aluminum" to the British spelling "Aluminium" in an article written entirely in American English
- [13] Changing the British spelling "hypoglycaemia" to the American spelling "hypoglycemia" in an article written entirely in British English
- [14] Changing the British "St" to the American "St." in an article about an English school
- [15] Changing "Takeoff" to "Take-Off" in a link - both are valid spellings and you should not be changing one to another. Since the rest of the article consistently uses the single word spelling the link should use the same spelling.
Many of the remaining edits, while not outright errors, were entirely pointless and should not have been made, but are not worth the effort of reverting:
- [16] Both "Long house" and "Longhouse" are valid spellings, and this should not have been changed
- [17] Both "Pulsejet" and "Pulse jet" are acceptable spelling, and this should not have been changed
- [18] Both "Jujitsu" and "Jujutsu" are acceptable romanisations of this Japanese word, and this spelling should not have been changed.
etc. etc. etc.
Looking at my sample of 20 ish edits from your bot my estimate would be that less than 15% of the edits it made were genuine improvements, with the overwhelming majority either being flat out wrong or pointlessly swapping one valid spelling for another, often inappropriately. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, Thanks for taking out your time! If the majority of edits are being pointless and 15% edits being positive contributions, it is still getting better slowly right!? I’m learning and contributing on the way. My point is it is clear I never wished to or would in future try to vandalise. I’m learning and might have made some mistakes in start, but is the block now really necessary to prevent vandalism or misuse? We all, even the oldest of admins here, might have been just a starter here someday, might have made some mistakes, but someone took a chance on saying okay you’re going to do good work and a good contribution in future. Again having said, I assure you I will not be running any Bot from user account and try making more possible positive contributions only. Again, Is the block really necessary? K.Kapil77 (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- "it is still getting better slowly right!?" - Not really, because it's not the case that 15% are positive and 85% are pointless, it's more like 15% positive, 45-50% pointless and 35-40% wrong (just rough guesses based on my review last night). Even the positive edits often require someone else to clean up after you either to fix link syntax or to fix the rest of the article (since you're only editing links). The number of errors that I found looking through the bot's edits and the sheer magnitude of some of them (like changing quotes or names of musical compositions) is way way way too serious to allow the bot to run at the moment, which is why your approval request was denied. For reference our main antivandalism bot (CluebotNG) currently has it's neural net set to target a maximum of a 0.1% error rate, that's the kind of accuracy you need to be aiming for before you start making large scale changes to articles. You also have to bear in mind the massive difference between the amount of time it takes for your bot to make an edit and the amount of time it takes to clean up after it. It took you what, 20 seconds to change the name of that musical composition, while it took me 10 minutes to find a proper source and correct it. It took you an hour to make 150 edits, it took me an hour to clean up about 20 of them, everyone here is a volunteer, and we shouldn't be having to waste time cleaning up after your master's project. To be honest with you here, why are you trying to run what is clearly an unfinished bot in active development on the live site? You have a copy of the database don't you, so why don't you download a copy of mediawiki and set up your own internal clone of wikipedia to play about with? 192.76.8.91 (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)