User talk:Coumets

Coumets, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Coumets! 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 experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eunuchs in China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Koffler. 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) 06:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did at Lin Shuangwen rebellion, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. Don't use ads or unreliable sources on multiple pages,like yczg168.com or baidu. Rastinition (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the article linked on yczg168 is not an advertisement. It's the same article hosted on iqh.net which is a translation of an article by the historian Norman Kutcher. The wenku.baidu link is also not to the baike baidu wiki which can be edited by anyone, but another hosting archive site for articles. the wenku baidu link was an archive of the academic article hosted on core.ac.uk I get it if you accuse me of overlink and overkill on citations, but I did not place advertisements or try to link wikis as sources. I can remove the extra archive hosts like wenku.baidu and yczg168 and just used the main articles for those citations and there would be no problem.Coumets (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Eunuchs in Vietnam. Kpg jhp jm 03:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my own added content. I don't use a sandbox so when I edit and dump an imperfect version and edit out all the mistakes afterwards. Some of the content may be reedited or used again later. The rough draft is saved in the older revision for future reference.Coumets (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I simplified the reply

1. Please avoid content farms or different websites/source with the same or similar content, please read WP:SPS,WP:CIRC.Please use the earliest or most reliable one of them.

2. Please avoid WP:RSP

3. Please avoid WP:BLOGS

4. Please avoid too many references or links that will make reading or editing difficult, please read WP:LINK Rastinition (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use the following as examples:

Please use <ref name> for this.
Kutcher, Norman A. (2018). Eunuch and Emperor in the Great Age of Qing Rule (reprint ed.). Univ of California Press. p. 169. ISBN 978-0520969841.
Please use the earliest source for this.
柯, 启玄 (2017-02-22). "乾隆朝太监的短缺及其影响"
Please delete this blog
林, 育德 (2014-06-05). https://okplaymayday.pixnet.net/blog/post/41185837-%E8%A9%95%E4%BB%8B%E6%9E%97%E5%BE%B7%E8%82%B2%EF%BC%8C%E3%80%8A%E4%B8%80%E5%80%8B%E8%87%BA%E7%81%A3%E5%A4%AA%E7%9B%A3%E4%B9%8B%E6%AD%BB%EF%BC%9A%E6%B8%85%E4%BB%A3%E7%94%B7%E7%AB%A5 https://okplaymayday.pixnet.net/blog/post/41185837-%25E8%25A9%2595%25E4%25BB%258B%25E6%259E%2597%25E5%25BE%25B7%25E8%2582%25B2%25EF%25BC%258C%25E3%2580%258A%25E4%25B8%2580%25E5%2580%258B%25E8%2587%25BA%25E7%2581%25A3%25E5%25A4%25AA%25E7%259B%25A3%25E4%25B9%258B%25E6%25AD%25BB%25EF%25BC%259A%25E6%25B8%2585%25E4%25BB%25A3%25E7%2594%25B7%25E7%25AB%25A5 一個臺灣太監之死：清代男童集體閹割事件簿
Please reduce such a large number of citations.Like reduce WP:SPS kknews.cc or duplicate source 王, 茜 (2012年). "辽金宦官研究". 学位论文>哲学与人文科学. 吉林大学.
Another Han Chinese eunuch who was castrated and captured by the Khitan as a boy was Zhao Anren (赵安仁)[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57] The Han Chinese boys captured and castrated by Empress Chengtian became domestic slaves in the Liao palace and did not gain political power.[58][59][60][61][62][63] Rastinition (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think reading WP:IBID and WP:ILCLUTTER may help you. Rastinition (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can read [1] ,and use for Meskill, Johanna Margarete Menzel (2017) or other sources.--Rastinition (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Lê Thánh Tông into Lê dynasty. 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) 13:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, on Eunuchs in China.— Diannaa (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

I don't suggest that you add too much text to the source, especially if you put several sources on the same line. Please avoid similar content or same book by different publishers. By the way,why is there a divination website?I think that is one of the content farms.Please avoid content farms. Rastinition (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to start using edit summaries

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks!

You are making drastic edits without explanation. You really need to start using edit summaries. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Hoa people ‎, you may be blocked from editing. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hoa_people&diff=1053593298&oldid=1052748289

Both the author and the title of the book are the same. How many times have I reminded you? Don't use the same or similar sources from different publishers(web site). Rastinition (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Drmies (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain User:Caoersame and User:Bouterman. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Drmies, None of the policies in here- Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts were violated. Neither of those accounts were created for evading sanctions, scrutiny or bans. In fact this account is the only account that received warnings after the other two accounts stopped being used. I did not evade warnings or bans and was mostly editing in different articles (except one article, Ming Qing transition but still the topic was different in entirely different decades). User:Bouterman and Caoersame were not warned and their additions were not removed so there was no evasion of scrutiny. (Bouterman only received a manual revert of a citation template error and the added content was not reverted or removed) I would have been in violation of policy if the order of edits and creation of the accounts was in the reverse, if I used those two accounts after I received warnings on this account and that would have been evading warnings and scrutiny. In fact the reason why I stuck to this account to make further edits was exactly because multiple warnings were given on my page and I did not go back to the old Bouterman account to edit the Ming Qing transition article which Bouterman edited. I was originally not going to edit Qing, Ming and Vietnam related topics with the same account. Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate_uses allows for use of multiple accounts if they aren't being used to evade bans and warnings. Coumets (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=[[User:Drmies|Drmies]], None of the policies in here- [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts]] were violated. Neither of those accounts were created for evading sanctions, scrutiny or bans. In fact this account is the only account that received warnings after the other two accounts stopped being used. I did not evade warnings or bans and was mostly editing in different articles (except one article, Ming Qing transition but still the topic was different in entirely different decades). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bouterman User:Bouterman] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Caoersame Caoersame] were not warned and their additions were not removed so there was no evasion of scrutiny. (Bouterman only received a manual revert of a citation template error and the added content was not reverted or removed) I would have been in violation of policy if the order of edits and creation of the accounts was in the reverse, if I used those two accounts after I received warnings on this account and that would have been evading warnings and scrutiny. In fact the reason why I stuck to this account to make further edits was exactly because multiple warnings were given on my page and I did not go back to the old Bouterman account to edit the Ming Qing transition article which Bouterman edited. I was originally not going to edit Qing, Ming and Vietnam related topics with the same account. [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate_uses]] allows for use of multiple accounts if they aren't being used to evade bans and warnings. [[User:Coumets|Coumets]] ([[User talk:Coumets#top|talk]]) 20:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[User:Drmies|Drmies]], None of the policies in here- [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts]] were violated. Neither of those accounts were created for evading sanctions, scrutiny or bans. In fact this account is the only account that received warnings after the other two accounts stopped being used. I did not evade warnings or bans and was mostly editing in different articles (except one article, Ming Qing transition but still the topic was different in entirely different decades). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bouterman User:Bouterman] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Caoersame Caoersame] were not warned and their additions were not removed so there was no evasion of scrutiny. (Bouterman only received a manual revert of a citation template error and the added content was not reverted or removed) I would have been in violation of policy if the order of edits and creation of the accounts was in the reverse, if I used those two accounts after I received warnings on this account and that would have been evading warnings and scrutiny. In fact the reason why I stuck to this account to make further edits was exactly because multiple warnings were given on my page and I did not go back to the old Bouterman account to edit the Ming Qing transition article which Bouterman edited. I was originally not going to edit Qing, Ming and Vietnam related topics with the same account. [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate_uses]] allows for use of multiple accounts if they aren't being used to evade bans and warnings. [[User:Coumets|Coumets]] ([[User talk:Coumets#top|talk]]) 20:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=[[User:Drmies|Drmies]], None of the policies in here- [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts]] were violated. Neither of those accounts were created for evading sanctions, scrutiny or bans. In fact this account is the only account that received warnings after the other two accounts stopped being used. I did not evade warnings or bans and was mostly editing in different articles (except one article, Ming Qing transition but still the topic was different in entirely different decades). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bouterman User:Bouterman] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Caoersame Caoersame] were not warned and their additions were not removed so there was no evasion of scrutiny. (Bouterman only received a manual revert of a citation template error and the added content was not reverted or removed) I would have been in violation of policy if the order of edits and creation of the accounts was in the reverse, if I used those two accounts after I received warnings on this account and that would have been evading warnings and scrutiny. In fact the reason why I stuck to this account to make further edits was exactly because multiple warnings were given on my page and I did not go back to the old Bouterman account to edit the Ming Qing transition article which Bouterman edited. I was originally not going to edit Qing, Ming and Vietnam related topics with the same account. [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate_uses]] allows for use of multiple accounts if they aren't being used to evade bans and warnings. [[User:Coumets|Coumets]] ([[User talk:Coumets#top|talk]]) 20:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}