User talk:Saccyind

Welcome!
Hello, Saccyind, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Quinn (talk • contribs) 23:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

"Added nationality"
Please stop futzing with the nationalities and genres of film/actor articles. Some of these (like calling King Kong an "epic" film) are POV changes, others are problematic. There have been several discussions about the Terminator films, for example, with the consensus being that since they were multi-national productions and their "nationality" is not an intrinsic feature, we should leave nationality out of the lead. You would also do well to read WP:OVERLINK: We do not link generic terms like "epic" or "American". If you find your edits repeatedly reverted, please discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page rather than just making the same changes over and over again. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * king kong is an epic there is no doubt about that and terminator 2 and dark knight rises are american films funded and produced by american studios with stories based in american city so they will always be american films — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind (talk • contribs) 04:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Multi-national productions aren't given a nationality, especially not a single nationality; nor is a film's nationality of any importance—the notoriously "Irish" film The Wind that Shakes the Barley is actually a straight English production, for instance, which is just muddying the waters needlessly there, and I'm sure a thousand other examples could be made for why a film's nationality is simply not important. Consider though that a film with a Canadian director and an Austrian star, produced jointly by American and French studios, really doesn't have any claim to a given nationality. GRAPPLE   X  04:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Saccyind, whether you personally think a film is "epic" is irrelevant. Genres are determined by secondary sources and the lead must reflect the content of the article's body. As for the Terminator and Batman films please read Talk:The Terminator (and the prior discussions linked therein): These films were British/American co-productions (British studio & American production company for the Terminators, American studio & British production company for the Batmans). Their nationality is not clear-cut, nor is an intrinsic feature of the films, so in accordance with WP:FILMS guidelines there is no need to confuse or mislead readers by trying to pin a single national identity onto the film in the lead. Where the film's story is set has nothing to do with the film's nationality. The Ghost and the Darkness, for example, is an American film despite being set in Africa and featuring only 1 American character. A film's nationality is not determined by its story, but by the studios and production companies responsible for making the film. I'm not the only one who has reverted you on these changes; several other editors have as well, and you've failed to gain consensus on at least 2 talk pages. Repeatedly pushing your edits despite the objections of several other editors—both in edit summaries and on talk pages—smacks of edit warring to get your way.


 * P.S. As the notice on my talk page says, please make replies here rather than disjointing the conversation across multiple pages. I have placed your talk page on my watchlist and will reply to any replies you make here. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop adding 'American' to the Batman article. It's not necessary or appropriate for the lead sentence, and it's pretty clear at this poitn that consensus is against you.Euchrid (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Terminator 2: Judgment Day‎, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Anthony Hopkins. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Dark Knight Rises. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Vote for american nationality for the dark knight rises
I'm going to try and start a vote to get american added to the intro paragraph. To not allow this is wikipedia anti americanism. Wikipedia is trying to censure the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavisJune (talk • contribs) 23:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is trying to censure petulant liars who ignore consensus, guidelines and plain facts. GRAPPLE   X  23:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus is also not a vote. It's not "anti-American"...both of you (DavisJune & Saccyind) seem to be on some sort of idiotic nationalist crusade. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Can I ask an honest question? Why are you so insistent in adding nationalities to these films? Aliens, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and the rest. It's a minor element of several very large articles, yet you persist when so many people disagree with you. Why is this so important?Euchrid (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Final warning
You are editing against consensus without discussing your changes on article talk pages. This cannot continue. Please take your concerns to the article talk pages to avoid a block on your account.  Tide  rolls  23:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've replied to your message on my user talk.  Tide  rolls  10:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Your edits
Why are your edits so confrontational? Have you checked into the MOS guidelines regarding nationalities of article subjects? You make a bold statement here, but what has the article subject said on the matter? Is there clear sourcing for the edits you are making, because I see no sources being cited in your edits. Indeed, I see sources being deleted. Wikipedia is not a venue for crusades nor a field of battle. Please take a moment to reassess your choices and compare your stance to accepted convention and policies.  Tide  rolls  01:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's obvious that Saccyind is a single-minded editor who doesn't care to discuss changes and will simply plow ahead no matter what advice is given him, reverting to get his way if necessary. Thus far a net negative for the project. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

1st block
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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.  Tide  rolls  15:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have convinced me that you either do not understand consensus or are willing to disregard the concept. Either way, the resulting disruption is the same. Please do not return from your block to the same behavior.  Tide  rolls  15:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

2nd block
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism, as you did to Batman Begins, will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at M. Night Shyamalan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, as you did at M. Night Shyamalan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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.  Tide  rolls  20:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

UNBLOCK ME

 * Wikipedia policy is to refer to people as the nationality by which they self-identify. It is also the policy to block people who constantly re-add the same material, over and over, when consensus is clearly against them.Euchrid (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, if you continue these yell'n'rant-stunts and never engage in any conversation when disputes arise, you're gonna have a very short career here, and your next block could be way longer. Make use of your imposed time-out by familiarizing yourself with applicable policies and the way things work here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * so you will BULLY ME I AM GIVING YOU AFACT THAT EVERY PERSON BORN IN INDIA IS INDIAN AND IN CASE OF SHYAMALAN HE IS INDIAN-AMEERICAN SO WHAT WRONG I DID — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Take my advice. And stop yelling, it doesn't bode well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * WHEN WIKIPEDIA ADMNS BULLY AND MISUSE POWER THEN I YELL EVERY PERSON BORN IN INDIA IS AN INDIAN CITIZEN — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind (talk • contribs) 03:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not being bullied. Several attempts have been made to explain to you why it is inappropriate to add this material. To summarise, Wikipedia policy is to refer to people as being the nationality by which they self-identify. The face that Shyamalan was born in India *is* mentioned in his biography, but as he considers himself American, not Indian-American, that is what the lead refers to him as. Adding a link to some document describing the terms of Indian citizenship adds nothing to the argument. The fact that you refuse to discuss the changes that you want to make, and keep making them even when several people ask you not to, or to discuss them first, makes you seem more like a bully than anyone else involved. Euchrid (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read this. Turn capslock off, open that policy article, and read it from start to finish. If you can't work within the confines of that policy then this is not the website for you, and there's nothing more to that—no bullying or personal involvement, just editors wishing to see an important policy respected and held to, and one editor flying blindly in the face of it. GRAPPLE   X  03:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * LINK GIVE ME THE LINK WHERE HE SAID HE IS AMERICAN NOT INDIAN AMERICAN COME ON YOU JERKS SHOW ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind (talk • contribs) 03:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * For frack's sake, are we not all sick of this yet? This user is clearly a net negative to the project & has no intention of engaging in any sort of reasoned discussion or consensus process. Several attempts to guide him onto the right path have proven fruitless. Indef block & call it a day already. And if these tirades of yelling continue, block him from editing his talk page. Yeesh. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This Is The Bullying I wAS talking About,The Misuse Of Power Show Me Where Shyamalan Said That he is American And I Gave You Link That Every Person Born In India Is Indian So In This Case Shyamalan Is Indian-American what wrong i said — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind (talk • contribs) 10:36, 9 April 2012‎ (UTC)

Your block has expired & you've immediately gone back to the exact same behavior that led to your block in the first place. Take my advice and stop fiddling with the nationalities of film articles. You should consider that when every single person you interact with disagrees with you, it may not be everyone else who is wrong: It may be you (hint: it is). --IllaZilla (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Formal warning and clarification
Your recent editing history at Aliens (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: Even though the rule is called 3RR, there is no "right" or "guarantee" that allows you to revert 3 times. Those who have been blocked for edit-warring in the past and those who continue their behavior despite multiple warnings may as well be blocked right away. Since you are aware of the rule, this is your only warning, and it applies to all pages you decide to edit, not just the one mentioned above. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * But Before Editing I gave valid reasons in the Talk Page And Those Reasons Are 100% True so what i am violating now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind‎ (talk • contribs) 17:27, 16 April 2012‎ (UTC)


 * WP:CONSENSUS. GRAPPLE   X  17:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Precisely. Saccyind, consensus does not mean "you are free to keep making the same edits over and over as long as you are certain you are correct and you post something on the talk page first". Consensus means engaging in discussion with other editors to come to an agreement about what's best for the article. Thus far your activity on Wikipedia has been analogous to that of a tiger loose in the museum. You're on the right track by posting to the article's talk page, but merely posting something there doesn't give you license to immediately restore the contested content. You need to wait for other editors to respond, and discuss the issue with them so an agreement can be reached that considers the best interests of Wikipedia's readership, not merely the advancement of your own strong opinions. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * even though mnight shyamalan is half indian and A INDIAN-American You Are Changing it i even posted a link which states that any NRI(non resident indian)born in india is half indian Irrespective of any place he lives Why DON'T you CHANGE MICHAEL FASSBENDERS NATIONALITY as IRISH as he is born in germany why it is German-Irish Not Irish do that and i will stop editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind (talk • contribs) 19:19, 17 April 2012‎ (UTC)


 * WP:CONSENSUS  GRAPPLE   X  19:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * SO YOU TELL ME HOW TO MAKE american mnight shyamalan INTO indian american WHEN I HAVE VALID LINKS YOU DO THAT FOR ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind (talk • contribs) 22:07, 17 April 2012 2005 (UTC)


 * WP:CONSENSUS    GRAPPLE   X  22:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your posts
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
section header McDonagh - English or Irish?  Tide  rolls  21:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

 Tide  rolls  21:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

section header - Very important information - Indian citizenship  Tide  rolls  21:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tide rolls (talk • contribs) 12:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop
I left those talkback templates here so that you would be able to find the discussions. Instead, you choose to continue editing against consensus. If you do not cease your disruption I will block this account indefinitely. Engage on the article talk pages, make an effort to understand consensus. This way you can avoid a block and continue editing here.  Tide  rolls  03:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

it's simple
Are you going to stop?

Any answer other than "yes" will be interpreted as "no". What's your pleasure? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * i am giving a valid link when editing then what is the problem problem IS YOU PEOPLE ARE MISUSING YOUR POWER AND BULLYING --Saccyind (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:CONSENSUS      GRAPPLE   X  15:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So, that's a "no". --IllaZilla (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * indeed it is... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing the same edit-warring that got you blocked the last 2 times. You have shown not indication that you understand at all how Wikipedia works. When editors disagree about something, they discuss it on the talk page--not just keep trying to force their own preference. And in some cases, as with some of those mentioned above, we have policies and guidelines that govern how editing is done. The fact that you repeated the behavior again so quickly after your last block expiring seems to indicate that you simply have no interest in editing within our rules, so I've made this block indefinite. However, indefinite does not have to mean infinite. If you are willing to commit here to stopping your edit warring and having civil conversations with other editors, you can be unblocked. But if you're not interested in that, then, sadly, Wikipedia is not the place for you. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock Me
In michael fassbender page although he is COMPLETE irish but as he is born in Germany So It is stated Irish-German SO like that M NIGHT SHYAMALAN IS INDIAN BORN His Both Parents Are Indian And By Indian Constitution Any NON RESIDENT INDIAN bORN iN iNDIA is indian so he is INDIAN-AMERICAN i gave link also THEN WHY CAN'T I EDIT ,WHY THIS BLOCK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind (talk • contribs)


 * The reasons I blocked you are explained above. They are not because of your opinion about Shayamalan's nationality. They are because you were edit warring to try to force your opinions into the article, after numerous other editors told you that your edits did not match consensus. If you are willing to commit to discussion of the matter rather than edit warring, I will consider unblocking you myself. But you will not be unblocked simply by asserting you are right in the content dispute. The only way you can be unblocked is if you agree to follow  our policies and guidelines; in this case, it means editing collaboratively, using article talk pages to try to reach consensus, and not edit-warring. Do you agree to do that? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * this is bullying a misuse of power of editors when i gave proper link for my edit with a link from indian constitution then why can't i make the edit,i gave YOU A CLEAR EXAMPLE that michael fassbender is irish but as he is born in germany wikipedia page states that he is german-irish so why can't be that for m night shyamalan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind (talk • contribs) 08:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The next edit that you make to this talk page that is anything other than addressing the reasons for your block will result in me (or another admin) removing your ability to edit this talk page. We have explained this a dozen times, and there is no reason for us to have to waste more time if you aren't going to listen to what we are saying. No one is sayign your opinion on Shaymalan is necessarily wrong, but that there is a process you must follow if you want the article to reflect your opinion. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * and what is that process ? and if you bully me about blocking then i will complaint you i am e mail to wikipeida — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind (talk • contribs) 20:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the process. The one I have been aggressively bombarding you with. Why don't you make the most of your new-found free time and read it? GRAPPLE   X  20:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * so if i give you a proper Reason WITH LINK ON Talk Page Of That article would you edit it in my place --Saccyind (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No. You need to discuss why your proposed change has merit, in order to convince those who disagree with it; they have the overwhelming consensus and simply providing a link to something tangentially related does not trump that. Actively communicate with editors and understand that if you can't sway them to your side through genuine reasoning, you won't be able to change what is currently the consensus opinion. Dumping unrelated links and shouting about abuse are not valid conversational techniques. GRAPPLE   X  20:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * then i have TO suggest these changes in the talk page of that particular article what if editors don't do consecensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saccyind (talk • contribs) 20:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Then your proposed change doesn't go through. If you fail to build consensus for a contested change, the change doesn't happen. That's how Wikipedia works. Again, this is all explained at Consensus. Please read that policy. All the way through. Right now.
 * And stop complaining of being bullied. No one is bullying you or has bullied you. Again, when every single editor you interact with disagrees with you, it's not because they're all bullies, it's because you are wrong. When you feel as if everyone is out to get you, it's usually because you're doing something wrong. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * i did nothing wrong i gave a valid link to each and every edit i made but just didn't did it before in the talk page which i will do Now Unblock Me --Saccyind (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

if you still believe you did nothing wrong, then there's nothing anyone can do for you anymore; as the blocking admin indicated above, patience is running out; in fact, you have been given an exhaustive amount of explanations and have been met with a degree of patience rarely seen here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * i already said that From Now On i will SUGGEST edit in talk page of that article now please Unblock me --Saccyind (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Direct question, direct answer: Have you read Consensus all the way through? Any answer other than "yes" will be interpreted as "no". --IllaZilla (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * yes and i will suggest changes in talk page of that article But editors Must Listen To me and they must reply me they must do that now unblock me --Saccyind (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Then clearly you still don't understand what Consensus means. Other editors do not have to listen or agree with you. You are not always right. You need to accept that fact and learn to collaborate with others, not work unilaterally against them. Until you can demonstrate that you understand this concept, you likely won't be unblocked. You also need to learn to type with proper capitalization. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * as i already said from now on i will make or suggest edits in the Talk Page Of That Article,so Now You Can Unblock me --Saccyind (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You've used talk pages before, and when others disagreed with you, you just went ahead and edit-warred anyway . You haven't demonstrated an understanding of why you were blocked, nor a willingness to collaborate with others and respect consensus when it's against you. (And you're still not capitalizing correctly. You don't just capitalize random words in sentences. I suggest you review this.) --IllaZilla (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed your talk page access for continued disruptive editing here. You have proved over and over again that you don't understand our most basic policies for editing. If you still believe you should be unblocked, go to WP:UTRS and follow the instructions there. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * i am constantly saying that i will do consencus on every article now unblock me --Saccyind (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not something you "do". It's something you arrive at, through a process of discussion and collaboration. Nothing you've said indicates to me that you've suddenly had an epiphany regarding the concept, nor is your pre-block behavior in any way indicative of someone who respects what Consensus is all about. Qwyrxian has given you your only remaining avenue should you wish to continue editing Wikipedia (WP:UTRS), but before you explore that avenue I suggest you take some time to seriously consider whether Wikipedia is the right environment for you. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom Unblock Appeal
Saccyind has made an unblock appeal to the Arbitration Committee. After review of the appeal, the Committee have declined the appeal.

For the Arbitration Committee.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  12:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)