User talk:BedsAreBurning

Your good article nomination of the article Pine Barrens (The Sopranos) is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SignedInteger -- SignedInteger (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Pine Barrens (The Sopranos) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of SignedInteger -- SignedInteger (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@Crystal Drawers, i'm sorry but at the moment because of an IP block, i cannot do anything (except place this talk page message here), you will have to wait a bit until my appeal gets accepted. i had to let you know somehow since at the moment, the appeal is still open and thus i can't let you know through any other means. thank you for your understanding, friend =) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 07:42, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I’m fine waiting for the appeal. Are you actually a sockpuppet of SG, though? If so, your appeal might not be accepted, especially so soon after the block Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 11:26, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

i can tell you this: we live together, that's why we share the same IP address because we share the same wifi. signed has removed their appeal because they don't believe there's a chance it will be accepted. i'm not removing mine. me and signed know who the actual vandal is. this may be the last time we'll interact, even with this comment or my appeal. if the appeal is accepted, then i'll get back to the usual but signed won't be back, they told me that this entire thing has completely mortified them. goodbye, friend, i hope to see you again but it is not likely, you were a great help, but this task has ended prematurely. thank you, but goodbye. BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 11:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Crystal Drawers, forgot to ping, but yeah. ("task"=getting every sopranos episode to GA, it is not referring to anything else) BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 11:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Sad to see you go. If this is the last time we interact, then have a good life, friend :) Crystal Drawers 🍌 ^{(wanna talk?)} 12:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Yamla (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

i'm afraid you misunderstood what i said, why did you block me directly? i am not the vandal, i can confirm that i am not the vandal. i'm confused as to why this is happening and why you're assuming that the vandal is the same person as me.

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 10:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

i am not denying that i may have abused multiple accounts nor am i denying that my behaviour was too close to signedinteger, i can admit to that and can understand why it'd lead someone to conclude we're the same person. i will admit that i made the User:Ramhthewatermelon account and User:NotACelticsFan account. however, signed did not make them. i did, on a laptop, on the same wifi connection (a house wifi connection that me and signed share) and i never did much more with them, as both were quickly discovered by other editors and both were easily blocked for impersonation. signed is being incorrectly blamed here, however, as i said, i made these accounts, signed was not active back then, which may raise suspicion and that is understandable but i never asked them why they weren't active anymore. i simply assumed that maybe they stopped wanting to edit on wikipedia. i admit that i did not and still do not really take wikipedia or the guidelines that seriously. that was a mistake, and i have only done harm to me and signed in doing so. the TAs are also my doing. not denying that, this is my fault. but it is not signedinteger's fault. they did not run any of these accounts directly. nor were they aware of them to the same extent as i was. i did a morally bankrupt thing, i harmed them and harmed wikipedia. again, i am aware this was a mistake, and i regret it and promise wholeheartedly to edit only with this account if i am unblocked. however, i refuse to believe this is signed's fault, this is entirety my fault, i am a seperate person from signed. i can understand why one would think that they were the one behind everything as they mentored me and reviewed my first GAN and i reviewed their GANs, too. if unblocked, neither me nor signed will interact to this extent again. i want to emphasise that this is entirely my fault, not signed's fault. signed simply had the misfortune of living with a morally bankrupt person like me. i understand if this is not enough, but i think the investigation should've been done against me, not signed and believe that yamla incorrectly assumed that it was signed. this unlock request is extremely long, but there are probably things you want me to answer that i did not answer here. so, if you decline it for that reason, i will make one last one trying to answer everything.

i will be answering a few questions that i’m sure will be asked in this addition to the request: why did you specifically get mentored by signedinteger? because, and this is a serious mistake on my part, i wanted to help them out with their GANs. this is not allowed on wikipedia. regardless, as the next question shows this purpose was gone very quickly. why did you make the TAs? because i wanted to mess around, like an idiot, and i admit to that. i only harmed signed by doing so. what about the two other accounts, you said that they were yours. why did you make them? for the former: online drama that has nothing to do with wikipedia for the latter: partially half as former, but it was yet another example of me being a bad friend, as this username is the handle of signedinteger’s boyfriend. when i said earlier that signed was not active back then, this was referring to ramhthewatermelon, not notacelticsfan. they still did not make that account, however. if you want proof that this really is his handle, see this youtube channel and this steam account, these are undeniably not signed’s accounts. (i found each with a google search of "notacelticsfan") why did you or signed deny these accusations? and why was someone else blamed? i blamed that someone else out of pure stupidity. that is the same reason for why i denied the accusations. i now admit that i’m the one responsible. signed’s denial is legitimate, they did not make any of these accounts. can you prove that you made the other two accounts? yes. i have their passwords saved and if needed i will log into both and place a talk page message on there to prove that they are mine. how can we trust you again? while i do solemnly swear not to do this again, i am willing to wait six months for the standard offer if this is the recommendation by a reviewing admin. i hope i answered enough questions here. BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 20:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Any appeals will need to come from the SignedInteger account; whilst I have no access to the CU data multiple CUs have confirmed that you are the same user. Even if that is not the case you admit to socking in this appeal so I will not be unblocking you at this time. CoconutOctopus talk 20:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

To the reviewing admin, check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SignedInteger. Ideally, though, you need WP:CHECKUSER to review the evidence. --Yamla (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

CoconutOctopus, i do not have access to signedinteger’s account. the situation with them is not good, do not expect any appeals from them. i am aware that several CUs have come to the conclusion that i am the same person as them, but i do not have access to their account at all. i will be emailing you (if i can) about the situation, and i expect you to be understanding of it. i will not be filling another request. in any case, even if we are not the same person, per WP:MEATPUPPETRY, you are to treat us as the same user. BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 20:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Then whoever does have access to the account will need to appeal if they wish to be unblocked, whether that is you or not. CoconutOctopus talk 20:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@CoconutOctopus: i have emailed you, please check your email inbox. BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 20:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Pine Barrens (The Sopranos) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Christopher (The Sopranos) has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Crystal Drawers -- Crystal Drawers (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Crystal Drawers, i hope i can come back soon but i can't do anything at the moment. i'm in a very stressful situation with signed, and i have to be on high alert. BedsAreBurning aka Sound🇵🇸 19:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Christopher the Sopranos frame.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The Sixteenth Sheep has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. GiftedIceCream 15:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Lehakat Pikud Merkaz has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Gommeh 📖   🎮 19:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)