User talk:Sagaines

Welcome[edit]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Sagaines, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

June 2015[edit]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center for International Study and Development. Accusing others of "trolling" is not assuming good faith, as required by WP:AGF. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel i wasn't in good faith but the fact the conversation going is hypocritical based off of his history of contributing. as stated on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll , "Application of the term troll is subjective." and personally i felt this was uncalled for and unnecessary. I understand you are probably trying to get this conversation facts based and civilized and I appreciate that. It's a non-profit the only ones who benefit is the people they are helping, let them do their thing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagaines (talk • contribs)

How is the conversation hypocritical. All they've done is look at the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, WP:GNG and WP:ORG, and concluded this organisation doesn't meet that notability. How is that trolling?

Also, I like to keep conversations in 1 place, so reply here please (not my talkpage). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its hypocritical because the criteria he has nominated the post on can be said about his past contributions to pages he has written as well as contributed to (see saved an article to speedy deletion), notability is not a priority for him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagaines (talk • contribs)

I doubt that's true, otherwise they would have been deleted. But which pages do you think aren't good enough then? Joseph2302 (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

see links i attached in my original comment. (i added the article and google search from one of his pages he wrote and a link to a page he saved from speedy deletion. all of which fall under the same criteria for deletion that he stated.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagaines (talk • contribs)

That's a film, which passes WP:NFILM- also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument. Criteria is different for some things, also that film actually has reliable sources and is written WP:NPOV. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

okay but what about the organization he saved from deletion ?

the film barely has sources and hardly comes up on google. it would be an exaggeration to call it notable.

otherstuff exists is a valid argument, you dont have to agree with it

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HakimSaid, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Joseph2302 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of CAWRI-CISD` (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]