Hello, Coining!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Coining, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the change of host from Panama to Nicaragua? I'd like to update the schedule and venue as well, but can't find it anywhere. Concacaf still lists it as Panama too, are you sure of the change? Kodak11111 (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kodak11111. Fair question. The source is this official (CONCACAF) social media post: https://x.com/concacafw/status/1896638210463219791?s=43&t=4RBjbnGcNtNgLSs1XHMFRA. However, I have not seen it on the tournament website. Once the schedule is released, I figure that will become the appropriate citation for the article. Coining (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TNM101 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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

There isn't enough coverage of this company for it to warrant a standalone article

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:TV3 Group (Baltics) 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TNM101 (chat) 06:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TNM101, I have added a number of third-party references to the Draft:TV3_Group_(Baltics) article. Are you able to take another look? Thank you. Coining (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have resubmitted the article for approval. Coining (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anything definitive saying there won't be a 2025 CIT, and CollegeInsider continues to have a 2025 schedule with no teams on their website. Nevertheless, I reached out to Angela Lento, who would know whether they have pulled the plug. It's possible they have some teams committed but are waiting to see whether they get enough to have a legitimate tournament before posting a schedule of matchups. Taxman1913 (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anything definitive either. On the other hand, the first round is supposed to occur today. Thank you for checking. Coining (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

Mz7 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2025 CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Taxman1913 (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per title, you have violated 1RR here. Please self-revert.

Also, your claim is false. The added source does explicitly say that the deaths were caused by Israel's military actions, so I suggest before you revert again you start a talk page topic if you would like to have it removed. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely didn't consider at least my first edit to be a reversion (and neither edit is marked in the revision history as a reversion), so that's why I do not think I've violated WP:1RR -- although if we are counting reversions, wouldn't your edits [this edit] and [this edit] both count as reversions in violation of WP:1RR? I think the reason you'd say that your edits aren't in violation of WP:1RR, and given WP:AGF I'm inclined to accept this explanation, is that they are attempts to make a change that includes other material. I still do not see where the Al Jazeera source you've cited says "that the deaths were caused by Israel's military actions," except in the headline, which is not a reliable source, per WP:HEADLINES, but if you point me to the line in the body of the article you're relying on, I will gladly self-revert. Coining (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit warring, 1rr, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Hello @ScottishFinnishRadish. Please see my reply to User:Raskolnikov.Rev immediately above. I substantively don't think I've violated WP:1RR, and if anything, although I'm inclined to apply WP:AGF to the other user, my changes are in response to what could have been considered a violation of WP:1RR by that user. I'd welcome your reconsideration of the block. If I need to post this on your talk page directly, let me know, and we can have the discussion there. Thank you. Coining (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see (here) that you've also banned User:Raskolnikov.Rev on the basis of a WP:1RR violation that preceded the one I'm alleged to have committed. As stated previously, I'm not sure that I would have come to the same violation conclusion, but in any case, does it matter at all who is believed to have violated the reversion limit first? I think some of the confusion (and I hope you accept this in good faith on at least my part) is that, prior to your restoring an earlier version of the article, none of my or Raskolnikov.Rev's edits led to any of our edits being marked as "Tags: Reverted" on the article's version history. The text of the restriction that appears when a user edits this article is "You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article" (emphasis added). By using the work revert and not edit, I was under the impression that users should be given notice that they've engaged in one reversion before being flagged (or blocked) for committing a second.

I understand a bit better now, from WP:REVERSION, what qualifies as a reversion, but I do genuinely think that my edits, including the explanations provided in the edit summaries, were consistent with that essay's statement that, "If you see a good-faith edit that you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it."

Anyway, if you're willing to reconsider, and allow me to chalk this up as a lesson learned, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Coining (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You made two reverts at the article, allowing that the original text was the status quo and your first edit wasn't a revert. I suggest you take your week off from the article to review WP:1RR and WP:3RRNO, as well as Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of my reaction was to the notice above, which says that I am "blocked from editing Wikipedia," whereas the partial block you imposed is, I realize now, just for the one article. Perhaps you'll correct the notice, but in any case, I'll focus my edits elsewhere for now. Coining (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]