User talk:Sayangbumi
REMINDER TO ALL PERSONS
- Just leave a message here if you want to talk to me. You may never know, but I might or might not reply back! Sayangbumi (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Unblock
- Sayangbumi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 115.134.217.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block message:
Abusing multiple accounts: User:Roman888
Sayangbumi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My reasons calling for my account to be unblock-ip is that I created this account in an internet cafe in Taman Tun Dr Ismail, Kuala Lumpur
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock 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 our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2010 (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.
Sayangbumi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is my second request for my account to be unblock. My contributions have not cause any damage or disruption as seen in my contribution history page. I have just made a few contributions a few days ago. The block is no longer necessary as I understand that that I have been blocked because of the previous actions of wikipedia editors in the internet cafe. My account should be exempted from the IP block as my account is genuine as I created the account in an internet cafe in Taman Tun Dr Ismail, Kuala Lumpur. This account has not been created with an malice or negative purposes. All my contributions will strive to be useful for people to read. Please bring back the previous admin Daniel Case to review my unblock request.I am unable to message the previous admin Daniel Case who ask me for extra information to unblock my account, because only registered users are able to post in his talk page. I wish to know whether the above has satisfied the requirements that Daniel Case has set.
Decline reason:
This is not an ip block; you are directly blocked as an account of the blocked user User:Roman888. You were blocked for repeatedly adding text to Wikipedia that is copied from elsewhere. You are not allowed to create a new account to avoid that block. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:17, 8 April 2010 (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.
Sayangbumi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please look at my edit history to see what I have not been adding text that is copied from elsewhere. The information I have used is derived is from a political magazine, Free Malaysian Political Digest, whose publisher is Annex Publishing of which I am a senior editor. I have only contributed to one article so far as seen in my edit history page. I have not created a new account to avoid the block as the admin FisherQueen has stated. I am not an account of blocked used User:Roman888. The account User:SayangBumi was created by me in the Internet cafe in Taman Tun Dr Ismail, Kuala Lumpur about nearly a week ago. I have already stated that I have not created this account out of malice or for negative purposes. My contributions hopefully will be useful for people to read and understand. The previous admin Daniel Case asked for me to explained further on my first unblock request which I did so. The other admin FisherQueen made some insinuations which I have further explained. I understand that this is not an IP block but the original intention of the block was meant for editors who were contributing from the same ip address.
Decline reason:
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.
Sayangbumi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Actually I am at wits end to understand why my unblock requests have been denied again and again. The admins who are viewing this page are not making any proper investigations and just give curt 1 or 2 sentence replies. Admin FisherQueen made an insinuation that I am a sockpuppet account of a blocked user User:Roman888. The other admin jpgordon also trumpeted the same explanation that FisherQueen gave without reading or understanding my explanation that the IP address is an internet cafe in Taman Tun Dr Ismail Kuala Lumpur. Checkusers function that he used to verify would have pointed out that other users before me was using the same IP address in the same location. I have reiterated that my edit history has shown that I have not been adding text that is copied from elsewhere that would violate the rules being enforced. I have also stated that the information I have provided is referenced and derived from from a political magazine, Free Malaysian Political Digest, whose publisher is Annex Publishing of which I am a senior editor. There is no website for this magazine as its a pullout that is placed in certain newspapers in Malaysia. The other explanation is that I have only contributed to one article so far as seen in my edit history page. I have said again I have not created a new account to avoid the block as the admin FisherQueen has stated. The account User:SayangBumi was created by me in the Internet cafe as mentioned before about nearly a week ago and in no way a sockpuppet account. I have no idea that a person before me was accessing Wikipedia and got banned in the process until I got branded as a sockpuppet in my own user page by admin MuZemike. I have already stated that I have not created this account out of malice or for negative purposes such as to breach copyright laws. My contributions hopefully will be useful for people to read and understand. The other admin Daniel Case was helpful enough to explain that on my first unblock request that I had to provide extra information which I did so. I already stated that I understand that this is not an IP block but the original intention of the block was meant for editors who were contributing from the same ip address. I do not want to create any new user accounts as I only want to use this account User:SayangBumi.
Decline reason:
"Checkusers function that he used to verify would have pointed out that other users before me was using the same IP address in the same location." Well, yes it might have. But would that have proved the users were actually different flesh-and-blood people? No it doesn't, not until computers run our DNA through their keyboards everytime we use them. And just how would you know that other users in the Internet cafe in question were editing Wikipedia before you? It's been a while since I logged on from an Internet cafe, but I think the general practice at one is just to go to your terminal and sit down, with only the most cursory glance at what other people were doing. But, if you were creating the other accounts, then of course you would know. In any event, I will be sparing you the trouble of coming up with an explanation for that as I'm protecting the talk page. Any future unblock requests should be made by email to the unblock list, unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2010 (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.
- Wait a sec. You're using as a source a magazine which you are a senior editor? That's probably a serious conflict of interest. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is no serious conflict of interest here. The magazine's articles and information is a mixture of commentary and news article source collations. Its in the news collations that I have used as the source of information in my contributions to my article.Sayangbumi (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)