User talk:The Other Karma

It is almost never suitable to copy content from another web site to Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:Social referencing, for more than one reason, the most important being copyright. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the owner of a web site licenses content for such very free reuse, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account. Certainly we can't accept text previously published on a web site which has a copyright notice saying "All rights are reserved", as in the case of material you have posted. JBW (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, The Other Karma. You have new messages at Talk:Sex education.
Message added 23:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 23:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Global Preverlance Rate of gambling.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Alex26337, mind giving me some feedback regarding my Unblock Prep? Do you think it will be successful? Would you say that I can edit main space on my own again? The Other Karma (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I read your unblock request. From what I've seen, your reasonings and evidence do seem concrete and applicable enough, and I commend you for including evidence for your collaborations and efforts for improvement. However, I want you to keep in mind some things that may deter reviewers and may potentially get your request declined:

1. While the details for your unblock and comments on self-improvement are great, try to be a bit more brief on the subject; sometimes, reviews that are too lengthy in words tend to be declined and be requested for simplification.
2. Try to keep reasonings and stances that deal with other Wikimedia projects (e.g. German Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, etc.) to a minimum, if not excluded at all. This is because the unblock request is directed to the English Wikipedia, and while you may be in good standing with other wiki projects, your goal is to redeem your status on this specific one.
3. While I found no evidence in your unblock request draft for this, continue to keep in mind that you don't want to put the blame on other users or otherwise put them at fault for your block. I've noticed this in your past block requests, and I don't want you to make the same mistake again.

For further information and advice on these topics, see WP:NICETRY. Finally, while this is my opinion on your request as it is currently written, I'd like you to still review it with a few more editors you find comfortable with, or have otherwise been working with, before creating the unblock requests for administrators to decide on. — Alex26337 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I have implemented your suggestions. The Other Karma (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I examined the first ten numbered diffs at Unblock Prep, and I would not use any of them as a demonstration of a level of English competence to support an unblock. For one thing, they were all trivial or minor, involving one word or two (sometimes just punctuation). What I saw there included stylistic issues like blank-padded vs. unpadded dashes, hyphen placement, comma placement, upper or lower-case in titles ([e]ditor-in-[c]hief) and elsewhere ([y]aoi manga, [l]esbian), correct but minor noun-verb number agreement corrections (X and Y represents), some duplicate word removals (was...was), compound noun vs. adjacent nouns (messageboard, tree line, snow melt), typos (though/through), verb tense (was/has been), equally good variants (increases in a predictable way, increases predictably), minor preposition and def/indef article adjustments, unneeded WP:ENGVAR changes (programmes > programs), awkward fixes that are not worse but miss a better fix, even some tricky fixes like a change of pronoun in a restrictive relative clause: "[X] is an early novel which describes a gay lifestyle without condemning it" ⟶ "...that describes" – a subtle point that often trips up native speakers. The whole thing has the air of minor LLM corrections, mostly stylistic, along with some minor grammar points, and none of which affects meaning or demonstrates one's command of English.

There is nothing in those diffs on the order of complexity of a full sentence, such as the one you translated in 2024 as:

• "it's characterized as on itself reduced, from other life contexts solved".

You may be light-years ahead of that in ability now, but it is not possible to know that by reading those ten diffs.

If the remaining 26 diffs are like those ten, if I were you I would discard them and start over. Alternatively – and I don't know if admins would accept this or not – you could try requesting an unblock from mainspace along with a self-imposed restriction that you would not make any mainspace edit involving a change of meaning to existing content, and would instead stick exclusively to gnoming edits such as stylistic changes to hyphens, commas, and capitalization; minor grammar changes of definite and indefinite articles, verb tense, subject–verb agreement, and the like; and that you would avoid removing a word or adding a word other than the previously noted grammar changes and when splitting/joining compound words. If you offered that as a self-imposed restriction, I would !vote for unblocking you (not that anyone is asking me).

If you do not wish to have such a restriction on your editing, then I would vote to retain the block on your mainspace editing, until such time as you have demonstrated the ability previously requested, and for me, that would involve throwing out your diffs and starting over. I hope this helps. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Your feedback is well-intentioned, but I am a little confused. In order to take your feedback into account, I would need some clarification. How could sufficient English skills be demonstrated? I already did all the other ones that I am aware of, which are: copy edits, content edit requests, deWP → enWP translations, enWP → deWP translations, writing articles based on English sources, verification from other editors and the unblock request itself? And not just once, but several times. The Other Karma (talk) 06:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I have not seen the other ones, and can only comment on what I have seen. If you are using machine translation or LLMs for your translations, that doesn't demonstrate anything except your familiarity with those tools. In my opinion, the way you can demonstrate your skills is by spending a couple of months at simple:Wikipedia and repeatedly adding content there successfully. You are not blocked there, and once you have accumulated a body of work there, you can then come back here and base your unblock request partly on your successes there. I mentioned this to you once before, you may recall, in connection with a previous block. I have left you a welcome message on your Talk page there, which will automatically ping you to it. In my opinion, that would be a good path to establishing a good track record, so thhat when you are ready to make an unblock request, there will be some meat on it. Best of luck, Mathglot (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the tip, I'll keep that in mind, and think about it. I've already considered translating the article into Simple English Wikipedia as well. However, the criticism you mention is directed at the way articles can be created, not at the result. It's like criticizing someone for going to the state library for sources instead of going to Google Scholar, cuz you personally prefer Google Scholar. When someone checks, like Alex, the result is always, yes, it fits perfectly, no violation of any rules, as is the case with my texts. I would also like to point out at this point that I have also added text from English sources directly to the English Wikipedia, no translation needed, just understanding it. (Diff1, Diff2, Diff3, Diff4, Diff5) Should I emphasise that in the unblock? To provide more context, why I do not like simple English Wikipedia, I learned standard English in school. Here I would need to learn a whole new language, to prove that I can use another language, that is not simple English just fine. That would just prove that I can learn a “new” language. The Other Karma (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)