Talk:Cocaine Anonymous

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Social Work Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirituality Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Archived deletion discussion

Article listed on WP:VFD Sep 13 to Sep 20 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

This doesnt seem to fall under any good category. If this is real, which I have to assume it is, then this person needs help and the page should be deleted as it is really personal information. If it is not real, then this should be deleted anyway.--Jpittman 03:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You gotta feel sorry for this guy, and yes, Cocaine Anonymous is a real 12-step organization. However, you are correct, Jpittman, that this article is not encyclopedic, and thus cannot remain here. Delete. Denni ☯ 04:10, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic. Kairos 04:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) Keep. I like the rewritten version. Kairos 02:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep, as the page has been rewritten. (Thanks for the VfD rescue, Quadell.) Delete. The original content was more appropriate for Wikipedia:Reference desk, if anywhere here on Wikipedia. I've left a note to that effect on the anonymous author's talk page. • Benc • 06:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete:~~ First hand account of drug abuse and therefore original research/essay. Geogre 12:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep rewrite, always happy to change a vote to keep. Geogre 00:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's a real organization that is worth an article. The entire article needs to be rewritten, but the topic deserves an article. A good one. Quadell (talk) 20:33, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, I completely re-wrote it now. I think we'll all agree the new version doesn't need to be deleted. Quadell (talk) 22:25, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  - Nice job Quadell: that's exactly what it needed. Antandrus 23:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Looks like I'll be in the minority here, but I also vote Keep. None of the existing article can stay though: it needs at least a short writeup of the real organization. Antandrus 20:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Revised article is good. — Gwalla | Talk 02:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep - New version is indeed good. -- Crevaner 16:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's completely encyclopaedic now. - Cymydog Naakka 10:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Keep - Very nice now. The original "article" is rather moving, I think. ClockworkTroll 07:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion - Graham ☺ | Talk 11:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rewrite

In 2004 the previous version passed as a good article? ... Anyway, I rewrote the article with references to reliable sources to prevent a cocky admin from doing something like this to it. — Craigtalbert 02:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cocaine Anonymous. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304202508/http://www.ca.org:80/literature/allothermas.htm to http://www.ca.org/literature/allothermas.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to join

Thomas Concannon James 174.252.131.85 (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addiction

Hi there a was willing if a could talk to someone on behalf of myself as a have been taking cocoon for 3 years now it’s not and everyday thing but a do it every weekend Friday to Sunday and a can’t seem to stay away from it just wanted advice and some tips before a loose everything Kylek23091993 (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]