User talk:CoastRedwood

June 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Megatsunami, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Stop doing this. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. If there are reliable sources in the article you are attempting to cite then you may copy the references over. And please read WP:EW. Meters (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About me using a blog as a source.

The blog’s information is sourced exactly sourced from the Australian Institute of Criminology. So don’t undo it. CoastRedwood (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Space telescope into Spacecraft. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Spacecraft

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Spacecraft, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia

You did not identify the source of the material in your edit. It appears to be Launch vehicle. Copying within Wikipedia is acceptable but it must be attributed.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

While best practices are that attribution should be added to the edit summary at the time the edit is made, the linked article on best practices describes the appropriate steps to add attribution after the fact. I hope you will do so.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed.~~~~ S Philbrick(Talk) 15:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lea Tree has been accepted

Lea Tree, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

––– GMH MELBOURNE 08:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Super heavy-lift launch vehicle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page N1. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, CoastRedwood!

Happy New Year!

CoastRedwood,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Year edits

It was decided close to five years ago that we wouldn't include eclipses in main year articles. As far as domestic events go, every country has a respective year page ie 2024 in the United States, 2024 in China, etc.

The point of omitting most domestic events is Wikipedia tends to only focus on western countries, limiting domestic events to their respective country articles allows editors to contribute evenly for each one and we can avoid having a bias toward one part of the world.

Searching through the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years will allow you to find areas where consensus was made on what events we include in main year articles and my edits are based on that. Thanks. PaulRKil (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PaulRKil (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Volcanism

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Volcanism, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Volcanism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Europa, Pascal and Triton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on 1883 eruption of Krakatoa

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://ujungkulonnationalparktours.wordpress.com/the-1883s-eruption/ or elsewhere. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant

Hello, I afraid your recent edits to elephant were not helpful. Cites don't belong in the lead since they summarize whats in the body which cited. In addition, some of the sources you cited are of either low quality, inaccessible or improperly formatted. LittleJerry (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited multiple reliable sources, and I have moved the new info to the etymology section CoastRedwood (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User pages - WP:USERTALKBLOG

Do not edit other editors' user pages. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Userpages

Please don't edit someone else's userpage as you did here I don't see why the material you changed was against our guidelines on userpages. Please see WP:USERTALKSTOP. If you have a problem with the content on someone's userpage, the best thing to do first is to reach out on their talk page, and then potentially seek dispute resolution. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You continued to edit user pages without reaching out to the editors on their talk pages. Please stop your disruptive editing. Continuing to edit war over the content on these user pages may lead to a loss of editing privileges. Fathoms Below (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing? Their superstates were fictiotious or just plain nonsense at times. Who uses :3 on a user page? CoastRedwood (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant userpages CoastRedwood (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User pages (which start with User:) are not articles and have different rules. They should generally only be edited by that user. You do not need to "correct" them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your discussion on User talk:ArkHyena is very silly and borderline harassment. Instead of scrutinizing other editors' user pages, focus on contributing to actual articles. Adding ":3" to a user page is not a violation of WP:UPNOT. You are pushing people to start an ANI thread against you, which may not end well. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reverted that comment just now for being toxic. CoastRedwood, do not make comments like that to people. Editors like ArkHyena don't need to visit their user talk page and see a nastygram like that. I don't know why you think it's your job to call people degenerates for not always using a formal register of speech, but that's inappropriate and it needs to stop. This is a formal warning. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, but just how are you unable or unwilling to use proper English on a Wikipedia userpage? How absorbed must your mind be into the world of the internet, or somehow dysfunctional, for one to be like that? I was being honest, it was not a deliberate attack, as I made clear, but it really was that. CoastRedwood (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your belief about informal registers of speech is extremely out of alignment with our community norms. I'd suggest re-calibrating instead of doubling down. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

‘informal registers of speech’ it’s more than that. Using casual style of speech is one thing, whole different slang terms are another. No need to use such terms when normal english works perfectly fine, in fact better. How do you expect everyone to understand these recently emerged slangs.CoastRedwood (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

‘silly’ ‘borderline harassment’

I was telling the truth. Nobody puts things like :3 and ‘yap page’ on Wikipedia userpages . It does not have a place, but in Wikipedia it is sort of like an invasive species of voracious crop-eating bird native to Europe. A nuisance for the local farmers, but when introduced to foreign lands like Australia, a far bigger problem. CoastRedwood (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it seems people do, as you discovered. If you don't like them, stay off other editors userpages. Canterbury Tail talk

January 2025

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Tails Wx may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' user pages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on user page etiquette. Consider this as a formal and final warning. Any further edits to other users' pages will take you to WP:AIV Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had simply not accepted the fault in the user page, and reverted it. That is all CoastRedwood (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you call it vandalism CoastRedwood (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Elephant shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Donald Albury 00:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m trying to see if consensus can be established at the moment CoastRedwood (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI - User:CoastRedwood

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for bothering other editors about their user pages (Special:Diff/1269793481) after warning (Special:Diff/1269782933). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you let go of the attitude implied by these comments because it is not remotely constructive, and could lead to a much longer block if this issue recurs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

page:

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I just told User:Tails Wx that this is not social media, and that pretending to be a fox can be taken to social media platforms (both proper and in line with WP:NOTSOCIAL). Nothing offensive. I was warned not to attack other users, which I didn’t (see the talk page of the user mentioned above). I am not here to attack users, but to correct them.

It simply wasn’t needed for ‘yap’ to be included in the user page of User:ArkHyena, so I told them as much. For one to use terms like ‘yap’ in the context of Wikipedia, rather than in contexts where it might be expected (on Discord or in friend groups of teenagers) instead of ordinary English requires one’s mind to be distorted , so I called them out on that. I did not harass them.

Also, it’s possible this violates the blocking policy anyway, because I didn’t vandalise any articles, and have been trying to make constructive edits, yet this block applies to them too.

Decline reason:

"I am not here to attack users, but to correct them." No. We are here to build an encyclopedia. The behavior you were warned about and are blocked for is not compatible with Wikipedia's collaborative nature; it is, in a word, disruptive. Please do not continue in this fashion when your block expires. --jpgordon^𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 02:33, 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.

page:

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).

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

---

Request reason:

When I was told not to edit userpages (after having done so twice as I felt the need to, when User:Tails Wx told me stop in an edit summary and I was warned again), I took it to the talk page. There, I told the two other users involved what was wrong with their userpages. It would be wrong to accuse me of ‘disruptive’ behaviour, all I did was reach out to the editors on their talk pages and tell them what was wrong. Not deliberately try to insult them, I was simply being honest with User:ArkHyena, and telling them and the other user involved what needed to change. I am not WP:NOTHERE. I am not a toxic troll disguised as an editor. I am none of that. I have made a many constructive edit here. CoastRedwood (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your appeals are concerning in that they demonstrate that you really don't understand what was problematic with your interactions with other editors in the diffs provided on this page and at the corresponding AN/I thread. If you make another appeal that continues to defend your actions without any introspection as to how inappropriate some of your interactions with others have been, you will likely end up blocked indefinitely because comments like this and this can't happen again. Ponyo^bons mots 16:57, 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.

Unblock requests usually work best when you sincerely apologize for your actions and promise not to do it again. In this case, you seem to be doing the opposite, doubling down on your behavior. Your behavior upset several other editors and that doesn't seem to bother you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After I made edits to the user pages, I was told to discuss it on the user talk pages. Which is what I did. Why are you seeing a problem with this? CoastRedwood (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)}}[reply]

You were told several things. One of them is if there is a problem with an editor's user page barring exceptional circumstances rather than just editing the user page you generally should reach out to the editor and if you're still not satisfied then take it up in other avenues for the community to deal with. Another thing you were told is you need to be civil and not attack other editors when in discussion. Yet another thing you were told is that you thinking something is a problem from some simplistic reading of a policy or guideline doesn't mean it is. And if something isn't a problem then you making a big deal over it is instead the problem. Even if you took on board the first point, you don't seem to have taken the second or third one on board. And they're arguably more important since they come up a lot more often. Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was warned not to attack other editors in discussion after calling someone a degenerate, and I didn’t do that. CoastRedwood (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically advised you to focus on contributing to articles rather than user pages. Why did you proceed to make this? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anything this unblock request leaves me anxious that, when the week is out, we may be back at AN/I in short order as CoastRedwood does not seem to realize that they were the ones at fault here. You do not call other editors degenerate. Period. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly of the opinion with their "correct editors" stance that this isn't going to be resolved. This is like the whole you have freedom as long as it's only my interpretation of freedom and you do things the way I do them stance. From the comments above it seems this block isn't going to resolve this behaviour. I'm strongly in favour of changing it to an indefinite block (remember indefinite, not permanent) and they have to convince the community of their intentions and patterns before they can regain their editing rights. Canterbury Tail talk 16:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I chose not to indef originally because they do have around 1200 constructive edits and I thought a short block might get my point across. But no objection if you or another admin wants to increase it to indef. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That implies you’re not convinced that I’m not WP:NOTHERE CoastRedwood (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m happy to contribute. At that time there was something going on in the Elephant article involving myself and a few others and I wanted to wait for consensus to be established on the issue before I did anything to it. CoastRedwood (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's why we have other articles apart from the elephant article which could have been improved, but you chose otherwise. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This dif is the "degeneracy" one since you seem to have forgotten saying it. [1] Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if Wikipedia isn't social media (it's not) and user pages should only be used seriously, why can you not follow your own beliefs? Isn't there a word for that? Canterbury Tail talk 18:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That diff has some WP:BLP and WP:G10 problems. We should not be calling public figures fat and mentally abusive. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used to accept that sort of thing, both in my user page and others, but no longer. Once I figured out that user page as it was violated guidelines, I blanked it. CoastRedwood (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 18:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted at ANI, waiting out a block and resuming the same behavior is disruptive. As such you have lost access to edit until you're able to make a convincing case you can edit collaboratively. Star Mississippi 18:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t wish to be painted as some sort of bad faith editor who is using Wikipedia as a battleground CoastRedwood (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept any claims that I am acting in bad faith. I know I already said this but I want to reiterate it. CoastRedwood (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I shall do so once again, in case anybody stumbles upon this talk page. I don’t care if I said this twice now. User:Star Mississippi CoastRedwood (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]