User talk:Coconut1002

Please do not move pages without prior discussion. Your move of Sino-Indian War and Nathu La and Cho La incidents were unexplained. Most people do not consider the Nathu La and Cho La incidents as the Second Sino-War. If you do wish to change these pages again, please try to build consensus on the Sino-Indian War Talk page before moving forward. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of wars involving India, 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. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article History of Bombay under the Marathas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no sources and little content

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. S!lVER M. (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

India is a Featured Article. Please discuss on Talk:India and gain consensus for any significant edit, per WP:OWN#Featured_articles. Your edits have bee reverted. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of professional sports leagues in Asia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Federation Cup. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add these to articles. There is a consensus against it here: WP:NOINDICSCRIPT - Bollyjeff | talk

how do you know anil kapoor has pashtun ancestry?

Hi, he reveals his Pashtun ancestry in this video. There are also several videos showing his ancestral home from Peshawar. Many Indian and Pakistani websites have also reported on the same. --Coconut1002 (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Architecture, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please specify which information you regard as "too technical"? --Liebeskind (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Both the sentences, in general, appear technical though I am particularly concerned about 'Oniguruma regular expression library' which I don't think most people will understand at first glance. Elaborate a little more and add more information to the page. Cheers --Coconut1002 (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Mughal Empire. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Also, please don't add a link to your list article to every war-related article. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 07:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Coconut1002, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to List of battles in the Indian subcontinent have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Willard84. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2017 (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).

Coconut1002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand that I have been blocked for abusing Wikipedia's policies. I abused the system by sock puppeteering and creating an 'illusion of support' vis-a-vis User:Willard84. My sock-puppet account was 'PolandHistoryProf'. I regret violating Wikipedia's policy; I believe I have made significant contributions to Wikipedia in the past few months. I appeal for an opportunity to redeem my account's editing ability. I promise not to repeat such behavior and always strive to be in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you for considering this request.

Decline reason:

That doesn't explain your other two socks, and even without that there was far too much disruption and the fact that you didn't take notice of feedback/warnings, especially around original research and copyrights. Please take a look at standard offer. —SpacemanSpiff 14:56, 7 July 2017 (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.

• You should request unblock after 6 months, and during this time you should not use other accounts or IP addresses to edit wikipedia.

Capitals00 (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't go so hard on a first timer! Also, take into account the contributions I have made to Wikipedia. I have spent weeks editing List of battles in the Indian subcontinent and now someone has reverted all of my edits with one click, on the grounds that 'the edits were made by a sock'. Those edits had nothing to do with me being a sock. It appears that the user, Kautilya3, is deleting all of my contributions to Wikipedia on the grounds that I am a 'sock who has been blocked'. Please look into this. My content was genuine and sourced. I have spent months, hours and hours everyday, editing and contributing to Wikipedia. Yes, I goofed up recently and I've learned my lesson but I can't believe that the repercrussion is so harsh (taking into account my contributions) and that some user is just going about deleting everything I've added. I am appealing to admins and fellow Wikipedians to look into this matter. --Coconut1002 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For whatever it's worth, it might be pertinent to note that despite the user's expression of remorse, he never actually apologized to the user he socked (me), or for the disruption that ensued following his actions. Regarding the reversions by Kautilya3, that is unfortunately what happens when you engage in sock puppetry.Willard84 (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2017 (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).

Coconut1002 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thanks for your response. On HistoryOfIndiaProduction, I simply uploaded one image on Wikimedia commons which I did not use abusively in any manner. As for the other account, I have no idea who that belongs to! I believe this is a system error since I never created such an account. The only account I used for sockpuppetry was 'PolandHistoryProf' and I duly apologise for that. As for the warnings, I have respected each of them: Original research and copyright. These were not deliberate attempts but genuine mistakes on my side as an inexperienced user. If you see the respective pages, you will notice that either the edit was quickly reverted or I fixed it upon seeing the notice. I promise to take extra caution at all times. I urge you to go through my contributions and decide for yourself if you feel I have made 'disruptive' edits or if I have tried to build upon articles and add new information. The offense I admit to, is that of sockpuppetry using PolandHistoryProf, which was outright wrong. I assure you that you will see a genuine contributor, an ethical user and a true Wikipedian adhering to Wikiepdia's policies in me once I am unblocked. Coconut1002 (talk) 10:43 am, July 7, 2017, Friday (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Once again, you can apply after six months per WP:OFFER. Do not edit again for six months, because the clock resets each time you do. Katie^talk 14:08, 22 July 2017 (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.