User talk:ChocolateCoatedStrawberry

Welcome to my talk page ChocolateCoatedStrawberry

Welcome!

Hello, ChocolateCoatedStrawberry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fortuna Imperatrix Mundil I'm ChocolateCoatedStrawberry. Sorry if I've made a mistake I'm new.

Block with no explanation or evidence

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).

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

Request reason:

There's been no reason for my unexpected block? I've been accused of being a sock puppet with no evidence against me. Please explain this. I haven't been involved in an 'edit war', yet I log on to find my account blocked for apparently being a sock puppet with no explanation

Decline reason:

There is technical evidence connecting this account to User:ZestyLemonz. And I don't think it's a coincidence that your edits align with these, so yes, you have been edit-warring. Huon (talk) 16:21, 14 May 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).

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

Request reason:

What technical evidence, no technical evidence has been shown, I'm an extremely good wikipedian, I've made brilliant contributions for many years and no I wasn't involved in an edit war. I added correct information about Lauren Harries with a reliable source, also I'd like to add why are users having more than one account such a bad thing. I haven't in any way portrayed vandalism, and I believe my IP and Account block should be lifted. As I have several pages I need to edit that no one else bothers to edit. I keep a lot of things up to date, and I can assure you whatever 'behaviour' you think I am responsible for is incorrect. But if I did do something wrong, which I doubt, I can assure you it wouldn't happen again. There's lots of upcoming TV shows I often edit, that without my involvement aren't updated

Decline reason:

Confirmed abuse of ~~multiple~~ numerous accounts. —DoRD (talk) 18:04, 14 May 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).

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

Request reason:

Whatt technical evidence, no technical evidence has been shown, I'm an extremely good wikipedian, I've made brilliant contributions for many years and no I wasn't involved in an edit war. I added correct information about Lauren Harries with a reliable source, also I'd like to add why are users having more than one account such a bad thing. I haven't in any way portrayed vandalism, and I believe my IP and Account block should be lifted. As I have several pages I need to edit that no one else bothers to edit. I keep a lot of things up to date, and I can assure you whatever 'behaviour' you think I am responsible for is incorrect. But if I did do something wrong, which I doubt, I can assure you it wouldn't happen again. There's lots of upcoming TV shows I often edit, that without my involvement aren't updated. PLEASE GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF THE ABUSE.

Decline reason:

The checkuser results are quite unambiguous; I see around a dozen of your accounts just one one IP range. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:34, 14 May 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).

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

Request reason:

Whar technical evidence, no technical evidence has been shown, I'm an extremely good wikipedian, I've made brilliant contributions for many years and no I wasn't involved in an edit war. I added correct information about Lauren Harries with a reliable source, also I'd like to add why are users having more than one account such a bad thing. I haven't in any way portrayed vandalism, and I believe my IP and Account block should be lifted. As I have several pages I need to edit that no one else bothers to edit. I keep a lot of things up to date, and I can assure you whatever 'behaviour' you think I am responsible for is incorrect. But if I did do something wrong, which I doubt, I can assure you it wouldn't happen again. There's lots of upcoming TV shows I often edit, that without my involvement aren't updated. PLEASE GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF THE ABUSE UPDATE: I'm at an Internet cafe meaning several others use the IP address HOWEVER in no way has my account been abusive.

Decline reason:

You state "... I'm an extremely good wikipedian, I've made brilliant contributions for many years ...". Since this account has only edited on 14 May 2017 then either: a) this statement is untrue or b) you are/have been using undisclosed multiple accounts. Irrespective of any technical evidence (to which I do not have access FWIW) this means that your appeal is misleading and that is enough for a decline. Just Chilling (talk) 23:31, 14 May 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.

Talk has been revoked to prevent the further waste of volunteer time. —DoRD (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference you comment above, this account has made only 25 edits, all this month.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]