User talk:Coiman

October 2024

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Islam, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. And please read WP:MINOR Meters (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Meters. I noticed your message. Thank you for reminding me. I will put an appropriate cite link next time I edit. Thank you. @Coiman Coiman (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at WikiShia, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Meters (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Schwalmstadt, you may be blocked from editing. Jiffles1 (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for that. I was trying to add a image, but got carried away, so I deleted the template so I could put a image in its place. Coiman (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Max Capote. What are you doing? Do not change the date on maintenance tags. That article did not even exist in 2013. Meters (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And don't add malplaced and useless refs. Your edit to East of England twice referenced the name "East of England", once with a spammy tourism site, and once with a wiki site. You have already been pointed to WP:RS. Meters (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you've done this on several other articles too. I've had to undo almost every one of your edits that I have checked. If it isn't useless cites on the name of the article it's for unsourced claims, using non reliable sources, contradicting cited info, or adding a supposed homeurl that has been squatted on. You really need to stop. You can be blocked for WP:CIR even if you are acting in good faith. Meters (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bro I am trying my best. Coiman (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: TharProductionPak (October 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Saqib was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:TharProductionPak and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Coiman! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Saqib,

Thank you . I will join at the teahouse.

-Coiman Coiman (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User:Meters. Really? You come back after two months just to vandalize my user page? Meters (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry. I just got really upset when you reverted most of my edits and confronted me back in October 2024, so I just wanted to get you back, I did a mean act, I am sorry, I won’t do it again, Coiman (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

My IP address is fully blocked, I am sorry for what I have done. Please note that all of my contributions were all good faith, if you go to my contributions page; the only one which was vandalism is one of my last contributions; it was on User:Meters page, and that was because I was angry about him reverting my edits; But I come to know now that what I did was wrong, , please unblock me and my IP, I have learnt my lesson now. Coiman (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There are over 3 dozen accounts on the blocked /64 range. Every single one of them -- other than this one -- is individually blocked and globally locked, for "creating multiple throw-away vandal accounts and block evasion." It will be hard work for you to convince us that this account is not the same as all the rest. Your excuse that you "got really upset" is a reason to keep you blocked, not a reason to unblock you. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

no reason to get blocked- edits were all good faith, Meters was too strict on me. Besides, even if I am blocked, can you not let me edit my user page? Coiman (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't address your anger issue, nor the issue that Jpgordon brought up that you seem to be operating from an IP range that is the source of many vandal accounts. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

.

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.