User talk:Cheetoburrito

Migos discography

If you want the Migos discography to be protected, you have to request for protection at the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. JayPe (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm being accused of being a sock puppet, where the only evidence to support such accusations lies in this User Comparison report where we have TEN SIMILAR POSTS. This sock puppet has edited a total of 24 unique pages, where I have edited 190. I find it rather outrageous I'm being punished just for editing so many different pages. These accusations came from the page Trap House III where I have not edited long, I looked at it a while back and noticed one specific user was consistently removing sourced content with no edit summary. I made no edits to this page other than undoing this one users edits.

Decline reason:

(1) I don't know where you got the idea that the only evidence of sockpuppetry was the user comparison report, but there are numerous similarities of editing to other known sockpuppets, too many to plausibly be chance coincidences. (2) Even if we were to ignore the sockpuppetry, there are several other reasons why unblocking this account would not be helpful, such as edit-warring, the openly stated intention of continuing to edit-war, personal attacks, and other disruptive editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:04, 9 January 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).

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

Request reason:

zero evidence has been provided to support the case that I am the alleged sockpuppet "Maya515", this notice was given to me because I've edited TEN SIMILAR pages to the sock puppet out of a total of ONE HUNDRED NINETY unique pages I have edited. Administrators have jumped to alarming conclusions about this case when not a single piece of substantial evidence has been provided to suggest I've done anything wrong other than editing a handful of music/television pages that this sockpuppet seemed to be interested in. The last administrator to review this unblock request denied because of a past "Personal attack" accusation that was never proven and was entirely unrelated to the sockpuppetry allegations. On top of that accused me of edit warring which has never happened once and is a flat-out lie. Cheetoburrito (talk) 21:10, 9 January 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

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 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.

Please don't remove declined unblock requests. Any administrator who reviews a new unblock request needs to be able to see previous requests, without having to delve through past history to find them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice. If you want an unblock request to be accepted, it is unwise to accuse other editors of lying in your request, especially if personal attacks have been given as one of the reasons for decline of an earlier unblock request.
Edit-warring has "never happened once"? Well, I had a quick look at your editing history, and these are the first three I found. There are more.

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].'
[7], [8], [9], [10]
[11], [12], [13], [14], [15] [16], [17].

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are instances of edit warring. All of those cases are undoing vandalism I.E. the mass removal of sourced content. Cheetoburrito (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I had a separate concern, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive940#Editing while intoxicated. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:41, 10 January 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).

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

Request reason:

my reasoning for unblocking can be seen in my above unblock requests. Substantial evidence has yet to be provided that I committed the things I did, anyone who reviews a history of the pages I've created and others I've contributed to can see I'm not doing harm to anyone or to any of the pages and that unblocking me will not cause harm to any of the articles in the main space or potential drafts. The argument can be made that I'm not very politically correct, but there is not evidence that I've abused multiple accounts because it's simply not the truth. Cheetoburrito (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you just created the block evading account User:Ugly Candy, I suspect your chance of being unblocked has been reduced to nil. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:40, 11 January 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.

LOL what even! Alright since nobody seems interested in providing any evidence to their continuous batshit crazy accusations I'm gonna disappear. Sorry for fixing your shitty pages? Didn't realize this is how you were thanked for creating pages and adding hundreds of sources. Cheetoburrito (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unblock me

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm like really sorry I have some serious emotional issues I really just wanted to be left alone. I'm sorry I didn't take your warnings seriously, I was just trying to have some fun, only reason I'm here is because my life sucks.

Decline reason:

It seems that you're not quite ready to edit constructively. I suggest you take advantage of our standard offer: take several months (six is recommended) to review Wikipedia's guidelines. (While I don't want to pry into your personal life, this could also give you time to get things in order there. Smoother off-Wiki life could lead to more harmonious on-Wiki editing.) Then, after six months with no incidents, you can request to be unblocked. Make sure you're prepared to show how you can contribute constructively to the project. —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 15 January 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.

@C.Fred: This account is a proven sockpuppet of Maya515; see the recent history of Trap House III for an example. They may only request the standard offer from their primary account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Skippa da Flippa concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Skippa da Flippa, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. 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 at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]