User talk:Carlosdanna

Your sandbox page[edit]

Hello, Carlosdanna, and welcome to Wikipedia. I have added a box at the top of your sandbox. This contains a link for you to submit the page for review as a Wikipedia article when you think it is ready. Please note, however, that articles are only accepted when they cite adequate sources to support the information given, and to show that the subject of the article is what we call "notable".
More information about article creation can be found at our "first article" page. There is more about Wikipedia editing in general on this help page. If you have any questions, the Teahouse is there to help newer editors. Regards : Noyster (talk), 10:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cynthia MacAdams (January 15)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft was written to praise MacAdams rather than to describe her neutrally. The headings are too large. See WP:Markup.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cynthia MacAdams and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Cynthia MacAdams, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Carlosdanna, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wish this account to be unblocked for being falsely believed to be "sockpuppet" of Lynneuna account, which I also request that account to be unlocked because it belongs to a friend of mine without a lot of knowledge in technology.

According to the various forms of sockpuppet there is

Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address - We are two different people so it is obvious we are going to have different ip addresses
Creating new accounts to avoid detection - My account is my firstname and lastname merge together refer to google or linkedin if you want to learn more about me
Using another person's account (piggybacking) - I am sure neither of the two account logged in from the same ip, probably from the same network when we were working together in the article but never from the same computer, also see how different are our edits to the article
Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users - This is a new account created for my personal use and to help my friend with her article, and depending on the result of the experience help improve articles in Wikipedia
Persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry) - I don't see any dispute about the article we are trying to complete we are getting the feedback and making the changes to the article

My conclusion this account should be unlocked. Do I know Lynneuna the answer is YES, am I working in the same article as hers YES I am helping her with all the meta tags we have to use to cite sources and modify the template in the page. If the administrator/moderator who blocked would of payed more attention to the edits would of noticed most of my changes are related to making structural changes to the article and Lynneuna changes are more about the content.

Personally this block is nothing less than a waste of time and a way to feed Bbb23 user ego by increasing his/her number of blocked users. I would like to request other admins and moderators check on the behavior of this users because from other users point of view there isn't enough proof to make such a block. Also these actions discourages new users to make edits or create articles on Wikipedia and growing this community even further, my proof for this statement is the fact that my account and my friend account are blocked and we cannot continue making changes to the single article we are working in Wikipedia without breaking the rules of the community because an entitled user unjustifiably blocked us (let's be honest there isn't clear definite proof for this behavior).

Decline reason:

I see that you read WP:SOCK carefully, but you somehow failed to notice the part that says "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts". That is exactly what you did. Whether those accounts belong to the same person or to several connected persons is irrelevant. So, your argument that you did nothing wrong is obviously false. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2018 (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.

Carlosdanna (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #20681 was submitted on Feb 20, 2018 12:33:11. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wish to appeal again the current block. As mentioned above I listed the reasons why I think this account should be unblocked in the item list. As for the reason the administrator Vanjagenije quoted, I think is correct I admit I haven't read the section where that quote comes from, the reason being is based on my understanding at the time of the reading that section was for people with multiple accounts, probably I failed to explain myself on the first appeal. This is the only Wikipedia account I have. As I mentioned above the other account that was blocked belongs to a friend and as far as I know is her own personal account. In this train of thought we are both using our personal account and working on our own spare time. Now as far as our edits and contributions goes we are only trying to get the one article we are working on published. We started both not knowing much of all the effort that goes into making a Wikipedia article and as consequence the respect I have for this community grew even bigger. I kindly request this block to be lifted so I can resume work in the article. Carlosdanna (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Only one unblock request at a time is needed. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:01, 9 April 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please I request an admin to take a look at this block and tell me what is missing, I wish to move forward with the article I started working, currently several users did an amazing work of formatting it and getting it to what I believe is Wikipedia worthy and has been on review process for quite sometime now. I am not getting any profit out of it as it was mentioned I wouldn't create an article in Wikipedia for personal gain or monetary reason all I want is the same thing I started working on that article which is to help Lynneuna who is a friend of mine. So please I kindly ask any admin to read the previous unblocked check the logs and see if there is a way we can move forward with this. Sincerely Carlosdanna (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request is stale and has not convinced anyone to lift your block. You are welcome to make a new unblock request, so long as it is substantially different from this request. Yamla (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2018 (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.

New request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

First I am not trying to convince anyone, I beg any administrator or moderator to see the logs of the article I was working on, most of the changes I did were related to editing and formatting the information my friend gave me. Also the IPs are different because we are two separate and furthermore we didn't try to force our point of view or dismiss other contributors ideas because Lynneuna (who is unblocked since March because of the same claims you are using against me) and I are amateurs when it comes to making a Wikipedia article. Right now I don't have any particular reason to request the unblock because the article is published and personally all my motivation to continue participating in this community is gone. I just want this my personal account to be unblocked just in case in the future I want to create another article. Please I beg one of the moderators or administrators to explain to me like if I were a 5 years old why my account is still blocked if there is no prof of sockpuppeting or to unblock my account. Carlosdanna (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2018 (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.

{{Checkuser needed}} to review the technical data as the claimed master Lynneuna (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is still editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carlosdanna has edited from a new location as of May 7 (single edit) but the other account has not edited since May 3. Carlosdanna's new locale is on another continent. Inconclusive based on current location. They were in the same area before.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a CheckUser block I cannot lift it, but if these were two people collaborating on an article, then the block seems somewhat unfortunate. The way forward in that case would be to disclose that the accounts are associated and to be careful about "meatpuppetry" issues, particularly avoiding to contribute to the same discussions. Huon (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I wish to unlock my account and my case to be reviewed please. You will find all the information above Thanks Carlosdanna (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per your comments, Liz's comments, as well as other users on this Talk page, I have unblocked you. Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not a checkuser (an admin who works on sockpuppet cases), I can not lift this block, Carlosdanna. But I'll ping the blocking administrator, Bbb23, and see if, after reading all of your unblock requests and accompanying comments, they would consider lifting this block. Your explanation is plausible to me but I can't undo their block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Liz and Bbb23!! Carlosdanna (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing[edit]

Have you ever been paid to create an article on Wikipedia or make any edits here?--Adamfinmo (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that goes against the rules of Wikipedia and suggesting something like this I find it a little offensive. Every contribution I made to Wikipedia were made in good faith and I am not pursuing any kind of remuneration or benefit from them. Carlosdanna (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to insult you in any way, but when two people show up and edit a brand new draft for the first time it can be suspicious.--Adamfinmo (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]