User talk:Saki

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discussion archives 01

Unprotect[edit]

Hi, I'm back on Wikinews again. Would somebody please unprotect my userpage. --Saki (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews:Admin action alertsμ 10:14, December 7 2010 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

  • No.
  1. Have you learned how copyright operates?
  2. Have you donated the domain used to misrepresent yourself to the appropriate organisation?
  3. Have you declared, and abandoned, your army of sockpuppets?
If you can convincingly answer the above, some consideration to unlocking your userpage may be given. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes
  1. I know how copyright works, and as far I remember I didn't violated copyright policy recently. Did I?
  2. I didn't registered that domain name to misrepresent myself, that is why it was never used and if somebody would be interested to adopt it, I'm ready to donate it.
  3. Wikinews community is well aware of my army of sockpuppets and I abondoned them already since then. Fyi, there were many usernames were suspected as my sockpuppets during my CU investigation however they were never mine. --Saki (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You have, repeatedly demonstrated disregard for the principles that underpin copyright. You have not violated such recently - how could you? You've not been here.
  • If you "didn't registered" (sic) to misrepresent yourself, you're deluded. Off you go and hand it over to Creative Commons.
  • You have not declared those socks; they've been rooted out, painfully, one by one, with substantial evidence that you've been socking elsewhere, and accidentally registering said socks here by forgetting to log out before visiting the project.
Really, you've a record longer than most career criminals and, as bad as that of Max Bygraves. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
So now, can I have a chance once more time or NEVER? --Saki (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Just donate the domain to Creative Commons, and list all the socks - including the ones we missed. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Domain name is expired already last month. --Saki (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed the domain is, at least, pending registration deletion. As to the socks issue: Many, many suspects were identified, and in a significant number of cases, identified as such and blocked on other projects. So, an "honest" accounting would be useful.
If you are looking for another chance, the 'retired' message on your userpage is no barrier to creating an article that is: Factually accurate, grammatically correct, free from plagiarism, fully sourced, and style guide compliant. That might convince people the protection merits removal. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The offer above strikes me as fair. Demonstrate you're working well, and you stand a good chance of protection coming off. However, I should note that I'm not aware of any of the cross-wiki outcomes. I only know of the suspected stuff here. If I was convinced Cyrus the Virus was also you, I'd harden my stance completely. If they aren't yours, fair enough, or if you declare them now - but equally, if I'm shown crosswiki evidence these socks, or others, are yours and you have not listed them... Well, I daresay you can guess. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Cyrus the Virus is not me. --Saki (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Still waiting for the sock list... --Brian McNeil / talk 00:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
As far I remember;

Saqib Qayyum (talk · contribs) Saqib (talk · contribs) Saquib (talk · contribs) Saqib Chaudhary (talk · contribs) Saqib Qayyum usurped (talk · contribs) SaqibChaudhry (talk · contribs) Saquib (talk · contribs) Saki (usurped) (talk · contribs) and maybe a few more but can't remember any more. Sorry! --Saki (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|global block}} --Saki (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Declined[edit]

Should this user be unblocked?

Mikemoral has reviewed Saki's request to be unblocked, and the result was declined.
The reason given by Mikemoral was: No valid reason provided for unblock..
Further debate can proceed here, however, the administrator's decision may be final, and the result of administrative consensus.


Mikemoral♪♫ 07:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Besides, you aren't even blocked. —Mikemoral♪♫ 07:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes I cannot edit, it seems that I'm global blocked. Maybe becuase of open proxy.. --Saki (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I wouldn't trust someone who can't fill in a block template with crayons, let alone editing rights. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "...becuase of open proxy" - and you claim to have stopped socking. We whack those for a reason, and you know it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know why is this guy still editing here when he knows he isn't welcome... Are you masochistic? Diego Grez return fire 13:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Update: If you're using open proxies, it's you're own fault you can't edit. You should, by now, know that this is a Wikimedia Foundation policy; proxies are not tolerated at all. Use a 'normal' IP address like the rest of the planet. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Inserting incorrect information[edit]

If you want to be accepted in the Wikinews community, you'll start by not changing correct information to incorrect information. Don Van Vliet's wife was called Jan, not Janet. If you can't read the sources when trying to be 'helpful', don't bother. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not changing correct information to incorrect. See this. --Saki (talk) 13:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not even going to click that link. It is not used as a source on the article. Don't even try and pretend you don't know everything must be sourced, and to cite any sources used to introduce new information. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a legit link to me, although I am unconvinced it's a reputable source. — μ 17:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Legit or otherwise isn't a concern. Totally irrelevant as it is not and never has been used as a source in the article is. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, what BRS said; do you trust Reuters and AP or HollywoodReporter? Making an article conflict with the cited sources is grounds for military use of a Red Snapper. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What[edit]

exactly where you trying to do with this edit? I'm left a little confused. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it was by mistake. --Saki (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)