User talk:Coolidon

talk page

Coolidon, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Coolidon! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheAmazingAtheist

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of TheAmazingAtheist, and it appears to include material copied directly from Rational wiki.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of TheAmazingAtheist

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on TheAmazingAtheist requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dai Pritchard (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

You can find the reason why I deleted the article in the deletion log.

The article was copy-and-pasted from Rational wiki.
It contained no real claim of notability. (See the inclusion/notability guidelines.)
It contained very negative claims, and no references. Apparently, you have copy-and-pasted the article from Rational wiki including the external link placeholders like "[1]". See the policy on articles about living people.
The article about this person was previously deleted by a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheAmazingAtheist.

I am currently unable to access Rational wiki, so I can't check if the article is under a free license, or if the references check out. But in any case, I believe that the article fails the inclusion guidelines, so I would recommend that you don't re-create it. (The deleted article contained a minor claim of notability that he had called for investigation of couple of people, one whom later took part in a school shooting. As I have said, your article - as far as I can see - didn't contain any, and was a borderline attack page. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to expose random Internet cranks.) If you disagree with my decision, you can challenge it at deletion review. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reviewed the Rational wiki article; I can only reiterate that the article isn't close to being acceptable on Wikipedia. (Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Defamatica.) It is mostly sourced to blogs, YouTube, and even the ED website itself! Unless this guy's exploits have attracted significant coverage by reliable third-party sources, he won't have an article on Wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hi. A friendly notice. You are making edits on many pages without leaving an edit summary. Please leave a summary to let others know what you are doing. Happy editing.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See here for a guide on edit summaries: Help:Edit summary.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits do raise concern. Especially the lack of edit summaries and the very high rate of edits makes people worry. (More than 50 edits on April 28 alone). If you don't have time to respond at WP:ANI, I recommend that you totally stop editing Wikipedia articles until you have time to do so. There is a risk that you will be blocked simply because people don't understand what you are up to. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

personal attack

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Joseph2302. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:EdJohnston. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What source are you using

Hi Coolidon, I think you're genuinely trying to help out by filling in fossil record data but several editors are concerned you're not putting in good numbers, and the numbers you're putting in aren't supported by sources. Are you using a reference to get those numbers? What source are you using for them? Zad68 19:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for vandalism, personal attacks. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Zad68 19:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHY

soo unfair

Because your edits were unsourced, thus appeared untrue, along with some messing around with minor syntax changes, making text small. Then your response was to attack other users. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that means

So that means im forever and ever blocked from wikipedia huh oh well thats disappointing

No, it means you should read the rules of Wikipedia and come back with a good reason why you should be unblocked saying what you will do different. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so what?

what should i do? then promise to never edit on wikipedia and i will get unblocked??

For starters, stop attacking other people even if you feel you are right and start listening to other editors have to tell you. I was new once too okay? =). I cant unblock you as im not an admin but you should realize why you were blocked in the first place before coming back. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What source were you getting your fossil period information from? What book or website? Zad68 19:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Promising to never edit would make it pointless to unblock you. I recommend reading through WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA, and demonstrating that you understand them by summarizing them (not just copying and pasting lines, but paraphrasing). This isn't meant to be some sort of homework or punishment, it's just your best chance to convince the administrators that you want to learn how things work here and want to help with the site. If you do not want to learn how things work here, and do not want to help the site, then there's no point in being here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and Wikipedia:Appealing a block- before making an official request for unblock, you need to show that you want to contribute to building an encyclopedia among other things. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So....

Man ive always like wikipedia i actually edited ever since i was 10. i guess the fossil stuff was maybe guessing but i thought it was close

Wikipedia does not allow guessing, see WP:CITE and WP:RS. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you like Wikipedia and want to help as per above you know what you need to do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

never knew..

i never knew that. well lesson learned. i guess.....

If you are unblocked what will you do different? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe

Maybe i should just go to Wild Ones Wiki instead......

Up to you, but just so you know you can still help out here in the future by learning new things first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)We don't have any control or connection to them, but I want you to think about something: vandalism is reverted and vandals are quickly blocked. Editors who help sites become part of a community, and their work helps improve the world. Do you want to waste your time, or improve yourself and the world? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i know

i know stuff. man i have created a bunch of wikipedia pages. it was me who created some spanish wikipedia pages. and other stuff. i even tried to created a page for TheAmazingAtheist that idiot, and i even created the fila brasilero english page. man i have experience!

Not to sound rude but if you had the experience you wouldn't be blocked now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

funny jokes huh?....

yeah yeah i just didnt know about fossils thats all jeez.

now what???

so what am i supposed to do???

i may have vandalized i know...

alright i admit i said the f word to someone i cant remember but alright i admit it.

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

i will not vandalize or guess anymore

Decline reason:

Under the circumstances, a Standard Offer approach could be taken in this case. PhilKnight (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2015 (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.

(edit conflict)You appear to be saying what you think we want to hear, instead of indicating that you understand what you did wrong. Like I said earlier, you're better off showing that you understand WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA by summarizing (not just copying, but paraphrasing) each page. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Alright i will not guess,vandalize, be rude or edit unnessisary or unconfirmed articled ever again.

Decline reason:

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Continue editing Wikipedia when first appropriate levels of maturity and English have been reached and can be demonstrated. And that will take time. Probably a long time and a year at the very least. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2015 (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.