User talk:Cocainaenvenenada

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cocainaenvenenada.

Cocainaenvenenada

Welcome

This is Cocainaenvenenada's discussion page on Wikipedia. My email: inquire@ground-magazine.com

Ezili Dantor

Page was vandalised and then restored and protected. Cocainaenvenenada (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ismael Ogando

Page was vandalised, protected and later erased. Cocainaenvenenada (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Las Acevedo

Page was erased and then restored. Cocainaenvenenada (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Weather Smells Like Oranges

Page was erased and then restored. Cocainaenvenenada (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GROUND

Page was vandalised and erased. Cocainaenvenenada (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages

When I unblocked you recently, I pointed out that you need to start using article talk pages. This is still the case. If you don't explain your actions on article talk pages, people will be hard pressed to distinguish your work from those of vandals. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 13:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sort of new in the platform, after a long time without loging in. Now I am blocked again because a user is trolling nominating my realted articles for deletion without reason Cocainaenvenenada (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with GROUND. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Razer^Talk 13:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using a deletion nomination to an article with all conditions to be public, use another way of calling consensus otherwise it will be considered #Vandalism. Cocainaenvenenada (talk)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with GROUND. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Hayman30 (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ismael Ogando for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ismael Ogando 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/Ismael Ogando until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Razer^Talk 13:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at GROUND, you may be blocked from editing. Razer^Talk 13:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at Ismael Ogando. Razer^Talk 13:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:23, 26 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I am target of a AfD Troll, Help! Cocainaenvenenada (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:33, 26 June 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Wikipedia user abusing privileges to disrupt information and getting away with it. #vandalism Cocainaenvenenada (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been blocked for edit warring to remove an AfD notice from an article, which you must not do - and making unfounded accusations against the nominator only compunds the problem. Anyone can nominate an article for deletion and there will then be a discussion which will be decided by consensus. To be unblocked you will need to address *your* disruptive actions and convince a reviewing admin that you will stop and will follow the appropriate procedure (which is to discuss it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GROUND), and that you will stop blaming other people. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 26 June 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I requeste the deletion of the duplicated GROUND page and an user decided to do the same to the offical page waiting revision. What is the reason for then also nominating the page of the creator of the project GROUND too? The page Ismael Ogando was also nominated by the same user shortly after discussing the edit, whcih means it is a #vandal attack. I can not participate in the consensus because I was blocked Cocainaenvenenada (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

An editor nominating a page for deletion in good faith, is not a vandal edit. Your continued accusations of vandalism for this nomination leads me to believe you do not understand the reason for the block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:05, 26 June 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 can participate in the deletion discussion if you do as I suggested above and get yourself unblocked - the discussion should be open for at least 7 days, so there should be plenty of time (even if you just sit out your block for the 31 hour duration). But you will not be unblocked early if you continue to accuse the AfD nominator of vandalism - in fact, you might even have your block extended. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A few more things...

There is no such thing as an "official" article on Wikipedia, and the subject of an article (or anyone connected with the subject) has no more say over its retention and content than anyone else here.
Articles are only hosted on Wikipedia if their subject satisfies the project's notability criteria, which you can read about at WP:N. There are also some specific notability requirements for media subjects, which are described at WP:Notability (media). If an article does not demonstrate notability according to those requirements, it will be deleted.
You must not remove declined unblock requests while you are still blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you have again removed the declined unblock requests after having been told not to, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page for the remainder of the block. You can remove anything you want when the block expires. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cocainaenvenenada, I hope you understand that I did not tag any pages in bad faith and I had not intention of trolling/Vandalism. Wikipedia is a community based work and every decision is taken based on consensus. Instead to throwing accusations, please participate in the AFD discussion after your block period is over. ( AFD for Ismael_Ogando and AFD for Ground ) After all we are all here to build an encyclopedia :) Razer^Talk 16:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #18596 was submitted on Jun 26, 2017 15:34:06. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~For whoever is reviewing this, this is obvious socking. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)~~ [reply]
- And @Cocainaenvenenada: Creating sock accounts while blocked in order to accuse me and Razer2115 of vandalism will not help your cause - in fact, it might even get the block on this account extended. Now, I don't want that to happen, and I'm quite sure that Razer2115 doesn't either. All Razer2115 wants to do is establish whether GROUND meets Wikipedia's minimum notability standards, and all I want to do is get you to follow our long-standing procedures for resolving such matters, based on civil discussion and consensus. Between us, we recognize you are a newcomer to Wikipedia, and we're trying to help you understand and follow the established Wikipedia ways of doing things.
  I do hope that when this block expires you will take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GROUND, and that you will extend good faith to the other people involved rather than accusing everyone of trolling and vandalism. The latter *will not* be successful, I can promise you that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cocainaenvenenada, Mockpack is unrelated, so presumably just a troll trying to stir up trouble. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your future here

Hi. You may recall I unblocked you on June 12, after you got into some problems editing Ezili Dantor. I told you then that you needed to use article talk pages to discuss your edits when there is conflict or controversy. You'd already been told that earlier by another admin. I also told you the same thing on June 24. You decided, as is your right, that the appropriate response to my suggestions was to delete them from your talk page. But you still haven't used any article talk page. Not a single time. Article talk pages is where we discuss improvements to articles and where we work out disagreements about articles. Until you're willing to do that, you won't be able to successfully work with the Wikipedia community. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring to reinstate your edits promoting your magazine. You have been told that you need to discuss contested edits on the article talk page, so if that's not the approach you take in future and you continue to try to force your edits in, you will be blocked for longer. Wait for the result of the deletion discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) COI, socketpuppet of Discasto, constant blocking and erasing relevant information about Ismael Ogando in every language. This user is particularly interested in deleting information about Ismael Ogando in GROUND and Ezili Dantor. Cocainaenvenenada (talk) 12:18, 2 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).

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

Request reason:

Boing! said Zebedee COI, socketpuppet of Discasto, constant blocking and erasing relevant information about Ismael Ogando in every language. This user is particularly interested in deleting information about Ismael Ogando in GROUND and Ezili Dantor. Cocainaenvenenada (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 13:35, 2 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I now see the reason I got blocked, I promise not to disrupt anymore. Cocainaenvenenada (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given your past comments, you'll give us more than just "I now understand". How would your future conduct differ from your past conduct if you're unblocked? Huon (talk) 16:43, 2 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I will be very obedient and follow closely every rule of the wiki-etiquette :) Cocainaenvenenada (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not answered Huon's question. Another failed unblock request may result in loss of access to your talk page. Therefore, I suggest that you sit out your block and, when you come back, show that you can walk the walk as well as talk the talk. Just Chilling (talk) 23:03, 2 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

You're all so mean, I'll save ypur IP's and make a bullying report at the Polizei :'( Cocainaenvenenada (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

At this point, you're wasting the time of a number of admins who have denied your requests. Had Boing not done so already, I would have revoked TPA. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:55, 3 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.

As I made the block, I can't review it. But I can revoke your talk page access because you are abusing it and wasting other people's time, and I have done so. The reviewing admin is welcome to reinstate it if they feel it is appropriate. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:28, 4 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).

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

Request reason:

I am still being bullied, I made a report to the polizei and got the IPs but still, I am deprived from my rights to contribute to wikipedia Cocainaenvenenada (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Editing Wikipedia is not a right. It's a privilege. For you, the privilege has been revoked because you abused it. Huon (talk) 22:33, 10 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.

Talk page access revoked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #18720 was submitted on Jul 13, 2017 07:30:12. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppeteer

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cocainaenvenenada. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ismael Ogando-Wolking, Prenzlauer Berg-Berlin (2017).jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ismael Ogando-Wolking, Prenzlauer Berg-Berlin (2017).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

Also:

File:Ismael Ogando in exile (Rigaerkiez-Friedrichshain).jpg

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cocainaenvenenada, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

- Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]