User talk:Tramadul
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Hello, Tramadul, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions, especially what you did forLizzie Velásquez. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please remember tosign your messages ontalk pages by typing fourtildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check outWikipedia:Questions, ask me onmy talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place{{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!Aristophanes68(talk)22:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 | HiTramadul! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Please do not mark any edits which change the content of articles minor, perWP:MINOR.a13ean (talk)15:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop yourdisruptive editing, as you did atPaul Frampton. Your edits have beenreverted or removed.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved throughconsensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your beingblocked from editing. You have been warned repeatedly atBLPN and at the article (talk page and edit summaries). Are you editing under any other accounts?76.189.111.2 (talk)04:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is yourlast warning. The next time youvandalize Wikipedia, as you did atMule (smuggling), you may beblocked from editing without further notice. You need to immediately stop what appears to be your singular mission of destroyingPaul Frampton's reputation, as you did once again withthis edit atMule (smuggling). You have been warned numerous times in theBLPN discussion, on the Frampton talk page, and in many edit summaries, about your highly inappropriate behavior.76.189.111.2 (talk)15:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirectPaul Frampton cocaine syndicate. Since you had some involvement with thePaul Frampton cocaine syndicate redirect, you might want to participate inthe redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).§FreeRangeFrogcroak04:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additions like the one you just made toMule (smuggling) is an extreme violation ofWP:BLP. You have already been warned multiple times about this. You will be blocked if you continue in this manner.First Light (talk)22:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.First Light (talk)22:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read theguide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk)02:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tramadul(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You've invited me into an ANI discussion, and then showed the poor form to not hear from me and then just decide to go ahead and make sure I can't be heard. This is remedied by unblock, during which time I'll have nothing to add on the subject of cocaine and something to add on the subject of what constitutes good referencing and good fact-checking in the articles I've put any effort into. I can come back and deal with this in the next 48 hours but right now. Other commitments intervene.Tramadul (talk)03:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Your comments here and elsewhere indicate that you don't understand and/or accept that you've done something wrong, including your continued referring to a fictitious 'PF syndicate' above (which isalso aWP:BLP violation). TheWP:OTHERSTUFF you've done doesn't change the fact that you have grossly flauntedWP:BLP andcontinue to insist that you've doing nothing wrong.In order to be unblocked, you have to acknowledge the behavior that led to the block and provide agood-faith reassurance that such behavior won't be repeated - "I won't add anything on the subject" is not an acknowledgement of the policy violations. -The BushrangerOne ping only03:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
| “ | On Nov. 12, Frampton’s trial began in a small wood-paneled courtroom, where he sat before three judges. On exhibit in front of the judges was a collapsed black cloth suitcase with wheels wrapped in yellow cellophane. Frampton’s long-held defense — that he was duped because he had a childlike understanding of the ways of the world — began to unravel. The prosecutor opened his cross-examination of Frampton by citing a text message retrieved from Frampton’s confiscated cellphone. “On Jan. 22 at 9:46 a.m.,” he said, “you wrote from Ezeiza airport to the person you understood to be Denise Milani: ‘Was worried only about sniffer dogs but more.’ ” As his interrogation of Frampton continued, he read other text messages sent from Frampton’s phone. One at 9:52 a.m.: “Need to know if your loyalty is with the bad guy-agent & bolivian friends — or good guy, your husband?” And another at 9:56 a.m.: “SIRU” — the Hotel Siru, where they were planning to meet in Brussels — “IS AMBUSH.” 10:14 a.m.: “Your naivety is bad for me, us. This is millions. NO SIRU, OK?” At 11:19 a.m., Frampton sent Milani an e-mail: “This stuff is worth nothing in Bolivia, but $Ms in Europe. You meet me at the airport and we do not go near the hotel the ‘agent’ suggested. Stay at another hotel.” At 11:47 a.m., there was another text message: “Monday arrival changed. You must not tell the coca-goons.” At 12:16 p.m., he wrote: “WHY ARE YOU IGNORING ME? AT THIS LAST MOMENT. WE DID NOT DECIDE HOW TO MEET TOMORROW IN BRUSSELS AND KEEP COCA & LIVES. AT SIRU WE MAY LOSE BOTH!!” At 1:06: “We may do cool 1,000,000.” Frampton explained to the judges that these messages were jokes. He’d made them up because of Dixon’s earlier warnings about drugs. “I was trying to keep Denise amused. I had already decided to fly back to North Carolina.” But even taking Frampton’s peculiar brand of humor into account, it was hard to understand why he would have taken the joke so far. He sent 30 messages like this, with specific details that made it seem as if he were referring to a real situation, a considered plan, not fabricating a story on the spot.[1] | ” |
Tramadul(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))
Request reason:
From the above it is not made clear that there are other knowing collaborators who formed a conspiracy to traffick the cocaine with biosubj Frampton. It is only Paul Frampton who has been found responsible for that. With apology I retract the use of the term 'syndicate' and I retract those implications that his Bolivian contact(s) or Belgian contact(s) or any person whatsoever other than him had any knowing involvement in the crime of cocaine trafficking which is referred to. The findings only extend to proving this biosubj has acted alone to attempt to perpetrate the cocaine-related offence(s) in Argentina involving a stated intention to send it through Peru and on to Brussels for something to do with "cool 1,000,000". I undertake to make required rectification and amendments in regard to this, and to adhere to information varying from this only in the case where such information can bereliable sourced. Requesting unblock.Tramadul (talk)02:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
I'm afraid this request does more to convince me you're determined to add your The Official Truth version of negative content about Frampton than it does to convince me that you understand why your approach to this matter is problematic. We takeWP:BLP very seriously here, and we're looking for more indication that you understand how we use sources and resist drawing conclusions before we'll be comfortable unblocking you, which you haven't provided so far.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)03:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.