Cocoablini

Welcome!

Hi Cocoablini! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Captain Calm (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

John Ming Yee Lee, Architect, FAIA moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, John Ming Yee Lee, Architect, FAIA, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Ming Yee Lee, Architect, FAIA (October 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Praxidicae were: 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:John Ming Yee Lee, Architect, FAIA 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:John Ming Yee Lee, Architect, FAIA, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Praxidicae (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Cocoablini! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation 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! Praxidicae (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:John Ming Yee Lee, Architect, FAIA

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:John Ming Yee Lee, Architect, FAIA, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Praxidicae (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I am still doing research.Cocoablini (talk). 19:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Lee/Timchula moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Lee/Timchula, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GPL93 (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Timchula (October 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Snowycats was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Lee/Timchula 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:Lee/Timchula, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Snowycats (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Lee/Timchula

Hello, Cocoablini. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lee/Timchula, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Lee/Timchula

Hello, Cocoablini. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Timchula".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Eloïse Bennett moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Eloïse Bennett, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eloïse Bennett (May 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CommanderWaterford were: 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:Eloïse Bennett 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:Eloïse Bennett, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Also if it's actually public domain, then don't upload it to Wikipedia but instead to Creative Commons. WP:TOCOMMONS says that you should delete any such image from Wikipedia and reupload it to Commons, such as this if it is legit. But also generally just please stop spamming images to Wikipedia articles. They don't need indiscriminate images just for their own sake, just because you have them. Especially if they are redundant to what's already there. Everyone should read WP:IMAGES and WP:IUP very carefully for image selection, and WP:IMGSIZE for formatting. Just use automatic thumbnail size. — Smuckola(talk) 06:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this in regards to the text or images? Cocoablini (talk). 13:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

599 Lexington Avenue

added a link pointing to Dee

Civic Center (Shenzhen)

added a link pointing to 19

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Crowne Center fountain.png

Thanks for uploading File:Crowne Center fountain.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I am the owner of the image, but I will ask my Father to approve the use. Thanks Cocoablini (talk). 00:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Crowne Center 1970.png

Thanks for uploading File:Crowne Center 1970.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I am the owner of the image, but I will ask my Father to approve the use. Thanks Cocoablini (talk). 00:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Cocoablini, legally, an image is its copyright and either you own it or you don’t. If you owned it then there’s nobody to ask. The copyright statement you gave is contradictory as it stands. Either way, these images are not significant for any encyclopedic use so they would just be stored on Commons if they are freely licensed or deleted if nonfree. They are fully redundant to existing higher quality images, especially because of color. — Smuckola(talk) 17:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, They are owned by my Father and we are sending a permission from him to permissions currently. He is older, not tech savvy at all so it's a little slow. Thanks for patience. The images are historical after the opening of the center, which is one of the first urban developments in the 70s. Thanks Cocoablini (talk). 19:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry , as a clarification, The images are in my possession and are owned by my Dad. I am adding his images to Wikipedia since they are rare images of certain buildings that he and Ed Barnes worked on Cocoablini (talk). 20:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Edward Larrabee Barnes. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Conflict of interest

This is the last warning to please stop editing Edward Larrabee Barnes given a clear conflict of interest. Any further actions will result in the seeking of administrator intervention.

You appear to have a close connection to a subject about which you have written on Wikipedia that raises concerns about a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged.

Anyone with a conflict of interest must avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your family or colleagues, your organization or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Note that you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. Even if you are not being paid, you are expected to disclose any close connection with the subject of the article, using the connected contributor template.

For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

Filetime (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I have cited sources and provided content that is from LATime and NYTimes and a bio of Barnes by Rizzoli books-and other sources. There is nothing unjournalistic about my work which has been additive. I think wikipedia needs to not allow editors to just revert like this, and waste my time. You lose valuable informationCocoablini (talk). 18:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

So buddy, where is the link to wikipedia rules that has gallery limitations. I read this, Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries and when you cited it as too big, you used subjective reasoning to revert additions I made instantly. No discussion AT ALL. Most images were wikimedia assets not from me anyways. That's destructive behavior and at the very least you should be thrown off the moderator board for abuse of power over caffeinated editing. Come on, I dare you. Show me the X and Y row and column limits for a visual subject like buildings. This I have to see....Cocoablini (talk). 00:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Cocoablini! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Writing an article
• Five pillars of Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Help pages
• The Teahouse (newcomer help)
• Main help desk

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Beccaynr (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, fyi, you may wish to review the information page about when to mark an edit as minor, as well as the guidelines related to your own Talk page. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. I am just trying to help. Filetime is using "warring warning " in an unprofessional way. He reverted content I provided that was additive as well. Cocoablini (talk). 19:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Given what is happening at Talk:Edward Larrabee Barnes, and Filetime's speedy deletion nomination of one of your images (without providing you notice here), and then the COIN Noticeboard discussion posted by Filetime, I am also going to ping Drmies for their review of this situation and to see if they can offer any guidance or assistance. This seems like a lot for you to be handling all at once, and I encourage you to review the essay No angry mastodons for perspective on navigating situations like this. Beccaynr (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Beccaynr, I looked at a few of these articles and I find the edits troubling, particularly the Larrabee Barnes edits: it seems clear that there is a distinct lack of neutrality here. But I can't help with the status of those images. I'll leave a note on COIN. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies, your review is very much appreciated. Cocoablini, while there is a lot to talk about, including how to incorporate sources into articles generally, I encourage you to prioritize the COIN noticeboard, and to review resources such as the Conflict of interest guideline and How to disclose a COI, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Beccaynr (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I would refer to this portion, since @Filetime has basically violated these upstanding rules of Wikipedia's,"When investigating COI editing, do not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Wikipedia's policy against harassment, and in particular the prohibition against disclosing personal information, takes precedence over this guideline. To report COI editing, follow the advice at How to handle conflicts of interest, below. Editors making or discussing changes to this guideline or related guidance shall disclose whether they have been paid to edit Wikipedia." Please refer to this for that rule. Cocoablini (talk). 17:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

There are a few weaknesses to that argument:

1. You have self-disclosed personal information on the English Wikipedia.
2. A Wikimedia Commons account exists with the same username, active in the same topics, and active in the same general time periods.
3. The Commons account has self-disclosed identity, by uploading an image with a real name in the author credits and claiming it as "own work."

Thus, WP:OUTING does not apply here, because you have already disclosed the information. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I was just about to say something similiar about WP:OUTING, and Cocoablini, you can confirm this by contacting the Oversight Team. From my view, while I think it is unfortunate that there was not more thorough communication with you before the COIN noticeboard started, it is important to focus on how you move forward from here, which includes properly disclosing your COI and familiarizing yourself with the COI guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I used my name because it's MY stuff. How does Wikipedia get content if owners(usually people close to contact) are disallowed from uploading. Is there some magical 3rd party elf doing all this work on all subjects? And as I said, do what you people want with the information and stop clutching your pearls. Cocoablini (talk). 17:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Per the COI guideline, Editors with a COI are encouraged to upload high-quality media files that are appropriately licensed for Wikipedia and that improve our coverage of a subject. [...] In some cases, the addition of media files to an article may be an uncontroversial edit that editors with a COI can make directly, but editors should exercise discretion and rely on talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. And on Wikipedia, there are actually not only elves, but also fairies and gnomes. Beccaynr (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

So, my images, taken in the 70' and 80's and scanned are not "high quality" enough and don't improve the subject matter ? Like a picture of the subject?? Who has a vintage picture of Ed Barnes, taken in the office, in the 80's that was given to Wikimedia Commons for free use? The unicorn professional photographer who deals with all the Wiki paperwork? These are one of a kind from archives, in my hands right now. Cocoablini (talk). 23:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

For many of them, yes that's right. A black and white image or a completely redundant image of what we already have in color and sharper quality, where you're abusing an article as a self-serving and obnoxious photo gallery dump, is not an improvement. Listen up. Everyone has been nice to you, spoonfeeding, gently correcting for countless months, even the copyright problems with serious legal implications for the project. You are not nice. You are belligerent and self-righteous as if you own this website. You impose your own rationale, rules, and laws which are made up in your own head with little to no interest in learning the basic reality of it, and are sometimes even completely inconsistent with yourself. You play dumb with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You ignore or argue against volunteers who are kind, patient, and versed in at least the scant basics of copyright law (unlike you), over your falsified copyright statements where you uploaded photos taken by someone else, physically owned by your father, and yet explicitly stating that you own the copyright. Thus you are legally imperiling a global non-profit organization that trusts everyone at first. Many or all of these photos that you still call your collection, are not your property according to copyright law. You've been told this, the images were deleted because you failed to fix it, and you admitted that you know it. You did not photograph these images, and you did not follow the given procedure to provide the copyright disclaimer on behalf of those photographers who did photograph them, and sometimes while blaming your dad for being slow. You play dumb with COI, while continually stating even in your own edit summary that you are doing a work on personal request by Some Dude who is the article's subject, which is the very definition of non-neutrality and conflict of interest. Your stated and implied goal is to further the fame of your family and friends by spamming images and wikilinks, not necessarily to serve the encyclopedia. And then you lecture people self-righteously as if your anecdote is superior to planetary law and site policy. That is absolutely not how anything whatsoever works. And sometimes also you do it totally right, and it's great, and I think it's a miracle. Or sometimes you do it technically right, yet also policy-wrong due to edit warring contrary to sitewide policy. You stated your own identity and yet accused someone else of doxing you! This is nonsense! And you are doing what some in Wikipedia's thin-skinned childish culture would call personal attacks though everyone here is luckily cool and above it, so thank your lucky stars for that. Everyone I've seen engaging you has been super cool to the letter and spirit, very admirably. But you've reduced some of us to the role of behavior coach. Everyone addressing you has two essential goals here: 1) to improve the encyclopedia according to the law of the land (almost the whole frickin planet), the site's private-ownership property policies, and community policies 2) to keep you from getting yourself blocked. You're welcome. But you're definitely on the road there. I am keenly interested in the architecture of Kansas City and have slaved away for months in deeper research than you ever dreamed of, driving around everywhere and photographing it, engaging with local experts, and writing about it on my own. I have sat at Crown Center daydreaming about how to ask you to collaborate, running around the place and taking photos inspired by the ones you've uploaded, and wondering how I can personally serve you as a very unique newcomer, but you are throwing this tantrum now instead. You've even been spoonfed a very sophisticated yet nonetheless child-behavior-coaching document about mastodons, telling you to stop speaking until you can drop your hostile manner. But still you repeatedly mock people day after day with your childish strawmen. This very public behavior definitely does not serve your friends and family anyway. WP:DROPTHESTICK. You have some great ideas and abilities, but the Wikipedia community has sadly been forced to shed itself of far more vital experts due to their tantrums and intransigence, in favor of anyone else who is civil. You have mocked people that this isn't possible, to have an encyclopedia that isn't built by experts and cronies, but that's absolutely what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is virtually impossible in theory—only in practice. What you call a virtue of cronyism or "journalism" or "interviews" is also called WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. But there's a way to leverage that knowledge and experience while doing it right. There's even a way to do it professionally. If you flex and adapt, with humility, patience, deference, and policy research. You've chosen to be a total newbie at one of the hardest paths in the world. So chill out and play nice. Put the law, the encyclopedia project, and the community first before your personal interest. Way far ahead. To the dear Beccaynr (talk · contribs), you have lamented a couple of times lately that there was insufficient engagement before filing a COIN, which is absolutely not true and you missed a long protracted history of spoonfeeding, and I thank you so much for your involvement now. — Smuckola(talk) 01:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Smuckola, you are correct that I have missed a lot of history when I focused on what I could see on this Talk page and the Edward Larrabee Barness Talk page. I regret my lack of diligence and I appreciate your understanding and assumption of my good faith. Cocoablini, I am concerned about your recent statement at the COIN Noticeboard, and I suggest that you consider striking it and apologizing. I think you have the potential to make constructive contributions, but it has to be according to the guidelines and policies, including civility and being here to build the encyclopedia, which includes, as Smuckola says, putting the law, the encyclopedia project, and the community first, and far beyond personal interests. Beccaynr (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit warring stuff is total nonsense. That was another petulant moderator on a powertrip. I mostly added images and content, not counteracted it. I cited that a building on that list was dead wrong and the link doesn't even cite Barnes as architect. It just sits there in the discussion area. Replaced it with another real one and it's called warring. That moderator just blew away my additions to the gallery-wasting my time because he/she is on a powertrip. If anybody warred, it was that dude. I suggest this as a good read for why wikipedia is going to be on it's knees forever and a bad source of information. In retrospect, it was a waste to come here. It's a crap medium, HORRIBLE UX, UI, more rules and hidden rules in hidden pages than the entire federal law books. A total nightmare to use and when you final get to hit publish, the cockroaches eat it all.Cocoablini (talk). 22:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Smuckola sounds a little hysterical and too close to the subject matter, as (he/she/it) mentions that KC architecture is important to (he/she/it/gender of preference here) Therefore, this is a COI as well and needs to not comment on this topic. Sorry Charlie. And man, is that the most unprofessional 2 paragraph rant EVER! :-)

Cocoablini (talk). 02:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Filetime (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Crowne Center fountain.png

Thanks for uploading File:Crowne Center fountain.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Eloïse Bennett

Hello, Cocoablini. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Eloïse Bennett, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Eloïse Bennett

Hello, Cocoablini. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Eloïse Bennett".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Ashley Biden, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You can't possibly think that an unsourced accusation of parent-child molestation is an appropriate thing to add to a biography of a living person, right? AlexEng^(TALK) 09:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced edits to biographies of living persons

Hi Cocoablini. I have previously notified you of problematic edits that you made to an article which serves as a biography of a living person. In that case, it was Ashley Biden. Now, I have also had to revert some unsourced edits that you made to Danielle Collins. Please re-read Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (BLP) and familiarize yourself with our standards for inclusion of content, especially if that content may be potentially defamatory. This is an extremely sensitive area of the encyclopedia to be editing, and it would be best to do so cautiously to avoid running afoul of policies and inadvertently causing undue harm. Please also read our policies on verifiability and reliable sources, which provide guidance on how to source statements. I hope we don't encounter similar issues in the future. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:515287-2000w-Thurgood-Marshall-Supreme-Court-Building-Atrium.jpeg

The file File:515287-2000w-Thurgood-Marshall-Supreme-Court-Building-Atrium.jpeg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Scaled-down duplicate of File:Courtyard of the Thurgood Marshall Building.jpg from Commons.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is exactly wrong with this image? It's a duplicate? 135.180.6.159 (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It appears there is no argument to delete this image and it's spurious Cocoablini (talk). 03:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

May 2023

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (film) plot summary have been removed because they added a significant amount of unnecessary detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I corrected one plot issue that was incorrect. Added context to another character. Cocoablini (talk). 18:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

As noted, please review WP:FILMPLOT. Generally plot summaries for films should be limited to a maximum word count of 700; your edits expanded the plot to over 900 words. If you feel this film merits an exception, you're welcome to start a discussion at the article's Talk page, but typically editors feel that such exceptions should be few and far between. I hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

So it is written so it shall be done Cocoablini (talk). 01:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Please refrain from making changes to plot summaries/synopses that conflict with the plot summary edit guides, as you did at Lawrence of Arabia (film). You may wish to review the specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. Excessive detail and high word counts should be avoided. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 10:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)