User talk:Sabinbik

Orphaned non-free image File:TrapGold.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TrapGold.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Sabinbik, 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.

Azealia911 _talk 14:34, 16 August 2015 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Well this is my orignial account, I'm sorry for what I did and now I know that it was wrong and I won't make it again. I'm really sorry and I really need a chance because I really love to contribute for wikipedia... I'm not good with words and I don't know what to say, but I'm sorry

Decline reason:

In this case a Standard Offer approach may be appropriate. Huon (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2015 (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.

You had already been advised to take the standard offer. If you keep on making unblock requests which just ignore what you have already been told, there is a good chance that sooner or alter an administrator will decide that you are wasting administrators' time, and will remove talk page access. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't mean to waste your time, but I'm confused. I need to know if I have to wait six months from now on? I read it and I'm pretty confused. You mean I have to request another unblock after six months? Lemme get it straight! --Sabinbik (talk) 00:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Can I...

@Ponyo: Well, I'm blocked, but it's ok if make contributions without using an account? I mean, why I'm supposed to wait so much to be unblocked for a minor mistake? At least let me make contributions without using an account, It's almost 5-6 months since I got blocked and I think I've learned my lesson, can I make another unblock request or can I use wikipedia without using an account? Why you guys can't let me make contributions, I'm not mean. But I find it selfish and I'm tired of waiting. Sabinbik (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You cannot make any edits, either via an account or as an IP, while blocked. It's not "almost 5-6 months", it's four. The entire point of the standard offer is to show that you can abide by Wikipedia policies. The fact that you keep returning to make additional requests and call the process "selfish" does not bode well. Note that the 6-month waiting period is to request an unblock. There is no impetus on any administrator to lift the block if they believe it would not benefit the encyclopedia to do so.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't deserve this, I got good intentions on here. But my work isn't appreciated at all, I'm tired of fighting for this when nobody cares, and I'm not wasting your time guys, I'M WASTING MINE Sabinbik (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2015 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

6 months ago I got blocked for using multiple accounts, and I didn't know was wrong and I didn't pay attention for the reason that I used to be blocked. But today I'm making my last unblock request and even though it will be rejected again and I won't be able to use wikipedia in english, at least I'm really safe on italian and romanian wikipedia where I used to contribute while I was blocked and I've learned a lot of useful things about how to behave in this community. I think 6 months where enough for me to learn this lesson, now I'm ready to start contributing on here and I had a lot of plans, but unfortunately I didn't have the chance to make them come true, and I think this is my last chance, so before rejecting my request just think about how many useful edits I did on here, try to think about the good things, not always only about the bad things. Because it's never fair.'

Decline reason:

It seems there was block evasion in December 2015 - whether you did it yourself or asked someone else to make edits for you is immaterial. And that means I can not unblock you at this time. I suggest you wait six months from the last block evasion, which would take you to June 2016, and then make a request in which you are completely honest about everything that has happened. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2016 (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.

• Non-administrator comment: You and your sockpuppet Iggyazalealover99 were blocked for sockpuppeting back in December 2014, so I don't think you can say "I didn't know [using/abusing multiple accounts] was wrong". You went right back and sockpuppeted again by creating and using Sabinbik22, and then when that account was sent to WP:SPI you wrote "I'm confused" and "What does that account have to do with my account?" and "I didn't know why my accounts were blocked" (even though it was perfectly clear why the accounts were blocked). The level of dishonesty here is disturbing, at least to me. I don't know why anyone should or would assume you are being genuine now. Softlavender (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

  I can understand that, but at the SPI I see what looks like some genuine confusion and it was suggested that the user deserved a second chance, so I'm minded to assume good faith here and unblock. A reblock is easy enough if things go wrong, and if they go right then we have one more enthusiastic contributor. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that at all. I'm seeing an editor who does whatever the hell he pleases, including vandalism, has never used an edit summary, has talk pages filled with warnings and blocks, and who lies through his teeth whenever he wants to be unblocked: [1], [2]; [3]; [4]. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to differ then, but I maintain that an AGF unblock has very little risk - and if you're right then it's easily rectified. The blocking admin, User:Kudpung, is happy for me to give this editor another chance, User:Vanjagenije at the SPI thought so too, I'm waiting for a comment from User:Ponyo, and unless there have been further problems since the last socking then I honestly see no good reason to deny an unblock. Besides, being able to unblock people is one of the nicer things I can do as an admin ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: They haven't met the terms of the Standard Offer that was presented to them (and which Vanjagenije (talk · contribs) supported in the SPI). I'm unimpressed with their unblock request, and share many of Softlavender's concerns; the unblock request appears to be an ultimatum "unblock me now or lose me forever". As I clearly pointed out to Sabinbik when they were socking in December, the "entire point of the standard offer is to show that you can abide by Wikipedia policies.". And yet here they are, 1.5 months later, requesting an unblock. It doesn't bode well, and I likely wouldn't unblock under these circumstances, but will leave the decision to you as I tend to be a bit more conservative when it comes to unblocks with socking implications. It's not always easy to AGF when you deal with socks and trolls all day, so your review is appreciated.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thanks for your thoughts. Can you explain why Sabinbik has not met the terms of the Standard Offer? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

They were evading their block in December 2015. They said they were "tired of waiting".--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

And now my request should be rejected again because I said that? --Sabinbik (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I missed the block evasion in December 2015 - can you show me some evidence beyond asking if "it's ok if make contributions without using an account?" I'm not doubting you, but I'd just like to see the evidence that Sabinbik actually did it (and that they did it knowingly against the rules). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Never mind - I hadn't properly read the comment below, which is an effective admission of block evasion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

---

There's no edit by me... All I did was to ask my sister to edit things for me that I thought was useful. neither her has the right to edit? --Sabinbik (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the old "My little brother did it". This case gets more and more glaringly obvious by the minute. This repeated feigned innocence and repeated feigned ignorance are visible a mile off. I agree with Ponyo that this ultimatum nonsense and repeated behavior is far too problematic, and the user has shown no understanding of any of their problematic behaviors (which include lengthy edit-warring with an admin). As Floq would say, we're being played a game of silly buggers. Softlavender (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It's ok, I'm willing to wait six months again. _Sabinbik (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

That was my last block envision, I've been waiting six months again to show you that I can respect these rules. I'm really sorry for what happened... And I just want you to give me another chance. Sabinbik (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

• Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
• Read our guide to improving articles
• Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
• If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
  1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
  2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
     • do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
     • do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
     • do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
     • do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
  3. Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
  4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
  5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), place at the end of the prose you copied this template {{reflist-talk}} and then save.
• Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
• When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
  • If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2016 (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.

@Yamla: Like that?

No. Follow the instructions so we can see your changes. And make significant and well-researched improvements. --Yamla (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Yamla: Ok, I'm giving up... I'm used to make only minor edits because of my low experience, at leat please move that content I edited to the original article, I would really appreciate if you'd do this.

Bombastic (Bonnie McKee EP)

Bombastic is the second extended play (EP) by American singer-songwriter Bonnie McKee released on June 30, 2015 as digital download by McKee's independent record label. McKee also released music videos for every song.

Background

McKee released her debut studio album Trouble in 2004, which was not very successful. After a while, she began composing songs for famous artists such as Katy Perry, Britney Spears and Taio Cruz. McKee earned a lot with her compositions that after turning single reached the top of international charts. In 2013, McKee signed a contract with Epic Records and released "American Girl", which had a low commercial performance but was well received by the public. McKee and her record so far were in conflict due to the need for creative freedom of the artist. After, McKee left Epic Records.

During an interview with Mike Wass's' Idolator McKee revealed that wrote over 100 songs. And also said she plans to continue releasing recordings independently.

It’s like, “I’m tired of waiting. I want to get a batch of songs to my fans.” I have 100 songs and I want all of them to come out. Of course, I have to pick my babies and kill my darlings and stuff. I really am looking forward to doing a full length, but I’m just putting this EP to see what happens, see what opportunities come my way. I have a whole album’s worth of material that I wrote when I was on Epic ready to go.

On July 1st, McKee announced on a live stream she was trying to get back the rights to the songs she had previously recorded with her late label Epic Records so she could finally get to release them, she also confirmed physical copies of the Bombastic EP were being released in the coming months.

Singles

The first single out of the EP was "Bombastic" being released on 26 May 2015 was written by McKee, Charlie Puth, Sean Walsh and Axident, and is a 80s-influenced dance-pop and pop rock song. Mike Wass from Idolator says that the song "plays like an ’80s workout tape," while the music video is "jam-packed with amazing outfits from the decade taste forgot and several eye-popping poses." the official music video for the song was directed by David Richardson. According to an interview given to Artist Direct, Bonnie revealed this was a song about reconnecting with her true self and feeling in charge of her own creativity.

This is what my art looks like when you remove the filter of a corporate overlord record label... It's about freedom to be yourself without caring what other people think, it's about the thrill of the fight, being fearless and empowered, and not apologizing for it! I wrote it when I was feeling kind of frustrated and down, and I needed to remind myself that I am a boss and I have the power to be who I want to be and do what I want to do. And I hope that that is what everyone else takes away from it too! Be bombastic!

A music video for the song "Wasted Youth" was directed by Darren Craig and released on January 12, 2016. The 80s-themed music video for the third single "I Want It All" was released on June 21, 2016 on McKee's Vevo account.. The psychedelic, pastel-colored music video for the fourth and final single, "Easy", was released on November 2, 2016. As of November 2, 2016, all tracks off of the EP have been released as singles.

Track listing

No.	Title	Writer(s)	Producer(s)	Length
1.	"I Want It All"	Bonnie McKee Oliver Goldstein Greg Kurstin Sean Walsh	Walsh	4:02
2.	"Bombastic"	McKee Charlie Puth Walsh Andreas Schuller	Walsh	3:22
3.	"Wasted Youth"	McKee John Newman Walsh	Walsh	4:09
4.	"Easy"	McKee Schuller James Wong	Walsh Goldstein	3:51
Total length:				15:23

Charts

Chart (2015)	Peak position
US Heatseekers Albums (Billboard)	13
US Independent Albums (Billboard)	46

Credits and Personnel

• Bonnie McKee - executive producer, lead vocals, songwriter
• Oliver Goldstein - writer, producer
• Greg Kurstin - writer
• Sean Walsh - writer, producer
• Charlie Puth - writer
• Andreas Schuller - writer
• John Newman - writer
• James Wong - writer

Release history

Region	Date	Format(s)	Label	Ref
Worldwide	30 June 2015	Digital download	Bonnie McKee Music
United States	August, 2015	CD (Autographed)