User talk:Honest Yusuf Cricket

Welcome!

Hello, Honest Yusuf Cricket, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Peter Pan (1953 film). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! WQUlrich (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Please refrain from making major edits on Wikipedia pages such as those you made to Dumbo, without first discussing your changes on the article's talk page, Your edit(s) require discussion to establish consensus as this is considered a major change. Your edits do not appear to have been discussed and have been reverted. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dumbo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cool (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Dumbo have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dumbo. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbo

Your heart is in the right place if you want to defend the crows from Dumbo since you are using verifiable commentary sources. However, the paragraphs defending the crows such as Floyd Norman's essay that you want to include is too long and cluttered. There's no need to include everything he said on the article. Also, you need to be reminded that Wikipedia is supposed to have a neutral point of view. Christianster94 (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dumbo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Your recent editing history at Dumbo shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. User:Christianster94 (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over your edit history, and I don't see where you've communicated with other editors at Talk:Dumbo. I strongly encourage you to engage with them and work toward a consensus about how the controversies section should appear.

Conversely, if you do not engage in discussion but other editors do, then you may find your edits reverted for going against that talk page consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,I'm still blocked! Can somebody do something about? Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up, I will revert the changes you made again on the Dumbo article. I invite you again to discuss your changes to the discussion page so we can reach a consensus. I feel there is no sense in posting Floyd Norman's entire text. We only need his main argument. Leave it to those interested who are reading the passage to click on the link should they want to read the entirety of Norman's essay.

Also, since the second paragraph mentions "defenders" (which is also a weasel word that needs fixing) who oppose the notion of the crows being thought of as negative stereotypes, it makes sense to list him as one of those defenders. Hence we should mention his defense earlier than how you feel it should be. Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view and we should refrain from trying to influence anyone. Christianster94 (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the changes has to do with the words from Floyd Norman in defense of the crows of Dumbo, considering the big misinformation about the characters by the haters, and the changes on Wikipedia are thought for those people who could probably never go to see the article wrote by Floyd Norman. I wanna simply inform people and give justice to great characters. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put the entire article of Floyd Norman, just the parts I consider the most important especially in defense of Walt Disney himself, it's quite possible not many people Will see the article. I thought the part about The Jungle Book vultures was very important. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; it is written neutrally, not to give justice. Further, we need to avoid large quotations from other people's work for copyright reasons. That is yet another reason to either summarize or quote a minimal portion of Norman's article and provide a link where people can read the full thing. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'm doing it being neutrally at the same time. I'm not putting the entire article, but only the most important parts, especially considering the great misinformation about not only about the crows of Dumbo, but also Walt Disney himself. There's nothing personal in the things I'm writing, those are not my words, what I'm giving it's just information. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wrote "about" twice in the wrong way, I didn't do it on purpose. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, now I partly restored the very last changes. Just to make notice. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Dumbo

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the Italian Wikipedia there is the exact and precise content I wanted to put on the English Wikipedia about Dumbo. So why this should be wrong? Here's the link, thank you: https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbo_-_L%27elefante_volante# Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you make on other language Wikipedia articles makes no difference here; the English Wikipedia has its own set of policies and guidelines. If you find yourself in a content dispute you need to follow the dispute resolution process and ensure you don't edit war.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, I'm just giving a service and informing users, and also Ned Washington worked on the music of Dumbo. Why continue to restore the previous change? I'm not doing anything bad. These simply official informations that deserve to be put on the page. Just the most important parts. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The closure of the complaint said that you seemed "unwilling to accept others' opinions that [your] material is excessive and risks violating the copyright of the original article by Floyd Norman." Let us know when you are willing to consider such feedback. If you war against valid copyright concerns you won't get anywhere. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I've been very careful not to copy his entire article and not using the exact words in some parts just to avoid risks of copyright. And as I said, Ned Washington worked on the song "When I See An Elephant Fly", so he has to be listed between the others who worked on the movie's soundtrack. I don't think I have violated any rule or policy. I please you to let the last change intact. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I cut a little part on the Controversy section who was very similar to another part. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're still quoting too much from Floyd Norman's article. The bare minimum on my version of the article is just enough to get the point across. I wasn't aware you added Ned Washington to the infobox, but according to the guidelines, it's only reserved for musical composers, not lyricists. Washington does not need to be listed there. Additionally, you didn't need to add it's John Lasseter's favorite film. Christianster94 (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Washington composed When I See An Elephant Fly. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote the lyrics for the songs. He was not credited with composing the musical score. Christianster94 (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, the edit warring continues: their edits are reverted, and their only edit to the talk page was on 16 November. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Honest Yusuf Cricket, you are risking another block for continued edit warring on Dumbo. There may still be time for you to promise to stop and wait for consensus. You were previously blocked on 13 December 13 on a similar issue at Dumbo, where you were constantly undoing changes by others. If you are blocked again, it will be for a longer time. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have been cancelled many things that I put way before. Important things that were accepted. I ask the last change I made to be restored, please. I did a hard work for that. Thank you. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So your position is that your views are correct, and others are expected to fall in line with what you want? EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those informations were accepted before. Why now have been removed? Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're still adding original research to the article. Do you have a reliable source that proves the leader crow's name "Jim Crow" was used as sarcasm? Also, the website source that has a model of "Dandy Crow" and IMDB are not necessarily reliable sources. Furthermore, your information is still excessive and is throwing off the neutrality. I made concessions yesterday to keep most of the defending arguments you added, but four opinions from John Grant, Leonard Maltin, Michael Wilmington, and Floyd Norman is more than enough. Christianster94 (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dumbo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Scat and Cool (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Your recent editing history at Dumbo shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Christianster94 (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to report that I'm still blocked from December. Thank you. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring about Dumbo, and copyright violations

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring and copyright violations.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. If you change your mind and decide to start following our policies, any admin can unblock. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been my definitive editing. I even removed many things from the last times! I please to be unblocked, I didn't do anything wrong. I didn't violate anything. Even my citations have been removed and I don't know why. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I can't edit anything else, can I ask you, please, to put this citation link along the other two in the part that says "in attempt to avoid controversy"? It is from IMDb and it's very important. Can I ask just this request, please? https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0561037/

"Thank you. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I did was in very good faith. I just wanted to give my contribute to inform people the best as possible. I don't think I violated anything, but anyway the citation I sent it's very important and I pray someone to put it along the other two in the part "in attempt to avoid controversy", because it's from 1955, when Walt Disney was still alive. I put it here again: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0561037/

I would appreciate it a lot. Thank you for your attention, patience and comprehension. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly placed back a large amount of text from Floyd Norman's essay after being instructed numerous times to stop. It remains to be determined whether the IMDb page is reliable or not. It was just an abridged version of the film. You would have to find the actual end credits of that particular episode and if it credits Cliff Edwards as voicing "Dandy Crow", then it can be included. Also, the Flickr web page (in which you blogged on) is not reliable either. I understand you are passionate about this particular topic, but you made no attempt to discuss your additions on the talk page. The version that is up now is good for now. Christianster94 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, of you noticed, I tried to reduce the quotes of Floyd Norman trying to put only the things I retained the most important and trying to satisfy the users. I even thought at last to put only one phrase, before being blocked. Then I was afraid of a possible hostile or negative reaction from the users. And I don't understand why the IMDb source shouldn't be reliable, it always has been. Plus I don't understand why the parts about Ward Kimball and the "spoofs" and the ispiration by Cab Calloway and Louis Armstrong shouldn't be included, considering the fact that these things are mentioned also in the Making Of Dumbo video. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the section of the voice cast of the IMDb source you can read "(archive footage)", as for all the other members of the cast. Isn't that enough? Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the reliable sources guidelines, IMDb has user-generated information and is not generally considered a reliable source. As for the crows being inspired by famous black musicians, I didn't find it heavily necessary. We already mention that the crows, aside from the leader, were voiced by black actors and that their animation was referenced from an African-American dance duo. You have to trust the reader to comprehend that the creators were using black people as inspiration for the characters, but hold back from being too defensive about it. Christianster94 (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why have been removed also parts that were present even before I edited anything? Like "Defenders have also noted that..." or the "...unlike the Stepin Fetchit stereotype common in the previous decade" or the "... such as Cab Calloway and Louis Armstrong"(with its citation link) parts? Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plus I seen many other IMDb citation sources on Wikipedia, that's why I thought it was a reliable source. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word "defenders" counts as a weasel word. You should be more specific about who is actually making the defense since you were using the documentary video as your source. I already answered your question about the Louis Armstrong-Cab Calloway connections, but I have reconsidered and it can be added back, but I will add just enough to maintain a neutral point of view. Lastly, just because other editors use IMDb doesn't mean they should. It's not that reliable of a source at all. Christianster94 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I didn't use the word "Defenders" and that whole part, that part existed even before I registered as a user, even the Stepin Fetchit part wasn't wrote by me. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I overlooked the fact that you said you didn't write it. I'm not adding the Stepin Fetchit part back because it was more of an opinionated statement. Christianster94 (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but still I didn't write it, that was present before. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to add this piece along with the citation link below that explains also the reason for casting Cliff Edwards please?

Kimball described the characters as being spoofs of many black entertainers at the time, with their clothes being based on 1930-40s fashion, and as differentiated characters with unique personalities. According to Kimball, the reason for casting Cliff Edwards was his ability to imitate musical instruments. http://www.michaelbarrier.com/WhatsNewArchives/2010/WhatsNewArchivesJan10.html#cliffedwards

And could be restored, please, the part "as a sarcastic satire against the Jim Crow laws," or "discriminatory laws with the same name," where it was before? That thing was confirmed by Ward Kimball and in 2019 by Floyd Norman.

Thank you and I apologize for disturbing now and before.

Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Everything's ok? I didn't receive yet a response to my last message. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not adding that back. It's also mentioned that Kimball took reference from an African-American dance duo and the personalities and mannerisms were inspired by Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway, and other black entertainers. That's enough. The information about Cliff Edwards's casting is interesting, but that would go under the "Casting" section (which desperately needs better sourcing). Also, I did find a free ebook version from a recent biography about Ward Kimball on Google Books. I'll add some information from it. Christianster94 (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Honest Yusuf Cricket. You can be unblocked if you will agree to make no further edits of the Dumbo article until April 1st. In the mean time, you will still be free to make proposals on Talk:Dumbo for whatever you think should be added. You must also promise not to restore any content that is challenged (by anyone else) as being a copyright violation. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I accept the conditions. Can I only ask for the fact that the name Jim Crow was supposed to be a sarcastic way to mock the Jim Crow laws to be reinserted after the phrase "In fact, the leader crow, played by Cliff Edwards, was originally named "Jim Crow"," please? Thank you. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm still waiting for a reply. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, did you received my last messages? Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, did you RECEIVE my last messages? Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Honest Yusuf Cricket you are unblocked based on your assurance you will "agree to make no further edits of the Dumbo article until April 1st". You are still allowed to post on Talk:Dumbo and try to persuade others. You are forbidden from restoring any content that is challenged (by anyone else) as being a copyright violation. Please be careful since your block can be restored if you don't follow this agreement. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to make just one correction to the article? Just this time? I promise then I will not touch it until April and beyond, I swear. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of your unblock are clear. you have agreed to make no further edits to Dumbo until 1 April. —C.Fred (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the names of the Jackson Brothers were Freddie/Freddy and Eugene. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film). Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What informations are you talking about exactly? Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of my informations is false, they come from very punctilious, precise and detailed research. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was false - the prince had no name mentioned or shown in the film, that is a fact from actually watching the film. Giving him a name is adding false information. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you digit on Google it'll appear that his name is Florian. Other characters are not mentioned by name in their films, but they are given names by the creators and in other transpositions like books. For example, in some Pinocchio book adaptations by Disney, the name of the Coachman is "Barker". Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this case he wasn't given a name. I found nothing contemporaneously from Disney related to the film that gave him a name. Also see WP:BURDEN and WP:FILMCAST. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make sense, even vultures in The Jungle Book, the crows in Dumbo, the queen of Snow White, Si and Am of Lady and The Tramp (Siamese doesn't count), the crow of Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty, the female elephants in Dumbo are not mentioned by name once in their movies, but they have official names anyway. Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources contain the official names? —C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Jungle_Book_characters Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0033563/fullcredits/cast?ref_=m_tt_cl_sc Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He asked for reliable sources, those aren't ones, although IMDb usually gets this right, the entries can be edited so can't be fully trusted. See IMDb entry for 1937 Snow White film. Also thanks for pointing out that the queen is not named either. If they are not named in the film, either in the dialog or credits, the names don't belong in the film article. It names are mentioned in somewhat contemporaneous reliable sources related to the production that would support them in the article particularly when there are no credits. WP:FILMCAST applies. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Honest Yusuf Cricket. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Cabayi (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why I've been blocked AGAIN?! And why my edits have been COMPLETELY reverted AGAIN?! I've waited months, I respected the terms, maybe somebody doesn't like me? I noticed a lot of hypocrisy towards me when I interacted with other users! There must be certainly a mistake, I demand to be unblocked... Please! Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I be unblocked, please? Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:GAB for guidance on what your unblock request must include. At a minimum, you must address why you abused multiple accounts and what assurance you can offer that you won't do it again. —C.Fred (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I felt like I wasn't liked by other users and I felt a hypocritical behavior towards me. The only thing I wanted was to give my contribute in the name of the pure information. Information is important especially in these difficult times. All everything I do with the best intentions and interests

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

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:27, 15 April 2020 (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.

The reviewing administrators? Who? Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you make an unblock request, it flags the page as having a request on it. Then, any administrator—and ideally, one who has had no prior interaction with you—will review your request, as well as your edit history and the previous discussions at the talk page. So, you'll have to convince such an administrator that you understand what you were blocked for and illustrate how you will be a constructive contributor going forward. —C.Fred (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

The reason of my block is suspected sockpuppetry, but I want to see the proof of thatHonest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2020 (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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I want to be unblocked because I am suspected of sockpuppetry, but no one exposed me any proof of that, even when I asked itHonest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As noted, the sockpuppetry was confirmed by a checkuser, meaning there is technical evidence to support the block. (Evidence that only checkusers can see) If you are not a sock you will have to provide a plausible explanation as to why the technical evidence indicates otherwise. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2020 (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.

Hello Honest Yusuf Cricket. You were found to be using Sonic The Lombax (talk · contribs) as a second account, in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Honest Yusuf Cricket/Archive. This fact was confirmed by a checkuser, so will be hard for you to refute. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

So? Some users, who probably reported me, were hypocrites and contradicted themselves about my contribution and adjustments to incomplete or imprecise articles. I was tired of that and to have all my works reverted completely or almost when the "problems" were just minor details not different from other articles or even official sources. I suspected they had something against me for some reason. I spend much time, even hours during night, for what I do with passion. Am I maybe paranoid? Honest Yusuf Cricket (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:25, 15 April 2020 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Honest Yusuf Cricket (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #30233 was submitted on 2020-04-22 06:47:00. This review is now closed.

UTRS

UTRS 30377 was submitted on 2020-05-01 19:50:09 . This review is now closed. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 19:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 37663 declined

UTRS appeal #37663 has been declined

Oh, please. Your sock puppet accounts were blocked 11/24, so now you come to UTRS to get this account unblocked. Sorry, no. You have reset the clock. You are ineligible for unblocking till May 24 2021. Unless you are globally locked, you should edit other WikiMedia projects in the interim to show you can edit constructively. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Honest Yusuf Cricket, the November 24, 2020 edtion. --Deepfriedokra (talk)
Given the problems with the edits by the sock puppet accounts, this user should be considered de facto WP:CBAN'd . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 38999

UTRS appeal #38999 is open. Noting de facto CBAN. Noting global lock. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 49365

Copying over questions and comments from UTRS appeal #49365

Deepfriedokra 2021-10-13 03:36:42 What should you do instead of edit warring? Please read the following and relate to your editing going forward. << https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Deepfriedokra/ew >>
Deepfriedokra 2021-10-13 03:40:50 What should you do instead of copy-pasting blocks of text into Wikipedia. << https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Uw-copyright-new >>
Deepfriedokra 2021-10-13 03:41:25 Why is IMDB not considered a reliable source for information in Wikipedia?
Deepfriedokra 2021-10-13 03:47:16 Noting CBAN. 3x. may need to repeat CU, but maybe not.
Deepfriedokra 2021-10-13 03:55:19 You have made edits regarded as disruptive concerning racism in Disney films. Will that be a factor in your editing if you are unblocked?
Deepfriedokra 2021-10-18 14:12:45 I have reviewed global accounts. If user ever formulates a request suitable for WP:AN, I believe a TBAN on Disney in general and Dumbo in particular is in order.
Deepfriedokra 2021-10-18 14:20:12 You are banned by the Community. <<https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Bans_for_repeated_block_evasion>> Any request for unblock must be carried to the Community via WP:AN <<https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard>> Any such request must be as thorough as possible, addressing any concern the Community might have. This is especially true of concerns that continued to be problematical in the edits of sock puppets. You are also globally locked, and some members will oppose on that basis alone. Therefore, your request must be very convincing. It must be convincing enough that the UTRS admins will agree to carry it to the Community.

I await your response. Best.

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]