User talk:Gl dili

Me blocked with dont reason User:Anna Frodesiak.

Semi-protected articles

I just wanted to explain why some articles aren't editable by some people (aka why they're semi-protected). The main reason this is done is because some people vandalize articles. Another reason is that there may be in an edit-war which isn't profitable for anyone. Most of the time, semi-protection is only temporary and will automatically be un-semi-protected on the date the administrator set when they semi-protected the article. Most articles on Wikipedia aren't semi-protected. I hope this helps. -- Gestrid (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank. However, if the Wikipedia free encyclopedia, edit must make all users with no restrictions. Let me remind, the essence of freedom is the absence of restrictions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl dili (talk • contribs) 16:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is free to view. That doesn't mean anyone can edit it. If we allowed everyone to edit it without any control, we would have almost no control over whether or not the content was encyclopedic. That is one of our main standards. Everything here must be notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word. We don't want articles on what someone had for lunch yesterday.

And, for the record, I've been working in anti-vandalism in Wikipedia for a while. We need this sort of control to keep inappropriate and (sometimes even) derogatory stuff out of articles. Wikipedia has millions of articles, and it would be impossible to monitor all of them for vandalism. Semi-protection also helps protect against incidents like this one.

-- Gestrid (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan image

Hi there. Two things:

1. I think that when [§2, §3d, §29 from Law n°4982 on Right Of Information Acquirement a law says "content", it means text and images. It doesn't need to say "images". The word "content" is broad.

2. The image you put in at Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is much older than the other one. Usually at Wikipedia, newer images are preferred over older ones. His facial expression is not a good enough reason to use an older image. It is therefore likely that someone will revert your edit.

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Give quotes please, I did not see anything there

2. I see at least 2 reasons why the photo needs to be changed

1. Emotion Erdogan's face (on the previous photo) are not confidential, you agree? I'll explain: Erdogan too tense face is visible to the naked eye
2. On the previous photo Turkey badge on a suit is not color flag of Turkey, it is much darker, respectively Erdogan on this photo is not the symbol of the goverment because the color does not match, it is very important, as there are flags country which consist only of color — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl dili (talk • contribs) 18:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are matters to raise at Talk:Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. I will post there and you can join in. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank, Already done. I am ready to talk, just write there Gl dili (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, I would like to discuss before the end this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Recep_Tayyip_Erdogan.jpg, no one told me anything, why? This user https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:INeverCry delete photo without talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl dili (talk • contribs) 18:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can discuss it futher at your undeletion request page. But, I still do not understand your argument. The law says "content". Why do you think that does not mean "photos" and only means "text"? Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indent your posts

QUICK TIP Indent your posts with colons, like this: I like bunnies. :Me too. ::So, we both like bunnies? :::Yep. Looks that way. ::::Pretty stupid conversaton. :::::Yep. Did I tell you I'm left handed? :No kidding? Me too. :) I like kittens. :Me too. ::So, we both like kittens. etc. etc.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith

Please understand that four editors (Kumkum, Storkk, INeverCry, Jameslwoodward), all of whom are familiar with copyright laws, came to the same conclusion. They concluded that the image is not allowed at Commons. So you should consider that maybe they are not all lying, but that rather you are mistaken.

When you are one of four people all understanding the same thing, and one other person insists that all four of you are wrong and lying, what do you think of that one person? Right now, that one person is you. Please try to see things objectively.

See: WP:AGF

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me the proof, it - §2, §3d, §29 from Law n°4982 on Right Of Information Acquirement, not proof. We have already discussed it here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Recep_Tayyip_Erdogan.jpg Gl dili (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The message is from ten days ago, so I'm pinging Anna Frodesiak back here. — Gestrid (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gestrid. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gl dili, I do not know what to say. This is a matter for WikiCommons. You have already brought this to deletion review there and several people have agreed about what the law says. How do you want me to help? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I had problems with the Internet, so I have not had for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl dili (talk • contribs) 15:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your posts

QUICK TIP Add four tildes at the end of your message. It automatically makes your signature. Like this: Hi Anna. How are you? ~~~~

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Al Arabiya.jpg

Hi there. When you upload a logo, please provide licensing information.[1].

It is now licensed this way: File:Al Arabiya.jpg

Thanks.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I do not know how to do it? I can use the licensed image instead of that I've upload? How to do it? Thanks. Gl dili (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RecepTayyipErdoğanOfficialPhoto.jpg

That file has been removed it from the article and article talk page. Please do not restore it. Several users at commons decided that images from that source are not permitted. The image will almost certainly be deleted from commons. If you upload it again, you will probably be blocked from editing there.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understood. Sorry. I don `t know that the discussion is not deleted but just moved to the archive. I am a new user do not forget it :) Thank you for helping me! And for your patience. You so pretty and caring Anna. True Wikipedia editors! Gl dili (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Please do not canvass at your userpage. If you have an issue at another Wikipedia, please keep it there. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've blanked your userpage. Please only use it per WP:UPYES. If you have an issue at commons or elsewhere, please post at that project. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another apparent copyright violation

You uploaded this photo from http://www.mipekyalova.com/. The bottom of that site says "© 2015 GSA DESIGNS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED." Please explain. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Sorry then. I guess I was wrong. Actually, I thought that the information from the official sites celebrities to spread it Gl dili (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. But from now on, please only upload images that you are sure about. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage and future at Wikipedia

I have deleted your userpage per WP:UPNOT and WP:POLEMIC.

I see you have been blocked at WikiCommons for persisting in calling people liars.

I also see that you appear to be here to push points of view, and now I see fewer and fewer (if any) constructive edits.

Are you here to help build this encyclopedia or not? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That means you are so Anna. I.e. You avoid the possibility that I could simply do not know the rules? If you had just warned (non-blocking) would have been enough. I read WP:UPNOT and WP:POLEMIC and corrected my behavior. Now, if you can answer for you words I would consider it slander: you say "I see fewer and fewer (if any) constructive edits". Where are my unconstructive edits? One example will suffice Gl dili (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the WikiCommons, where the user is lying, I'll prove after block. If I can not prove it, you can block me forever! But if i prove, you apologize to me and will no longer continue to make accusations against me Gl dili (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That means you are so Anna. I.e. You avoid the possibility that I could simply do not know the rules? If you had just warned (non-blocking) would have been enough. I read WP:UPNOT and WP:POLEMIC and corrected my behavior. Now, if you can answer for you words I would consider it slander: you say "I see fewer and fewer (if any) constructive edits". Where are my unconstructive edits? One example will suffice Gl dili (talk) 10:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the WikiCommons, where the user is lying, I'll prove after block. If I can not prove it, you can block me forever! But if i prove, you apologize to me and will no longer continue to make accusations against me Gl dili (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not block you at commons. I am not an administrator there. I am simply pointing out that you were warned there and continued.

Thank you for reading those policies and correcting your behaviour.

Please do not accuse me of slander. All of your recent edits to your userpage were unconstructive. They did nothing to help improve the encyclopedia. In fact, you've been here a month and have made 181 edits, most of them either trying to get an emblem into an article, and others at talk pages. Only 12 of your edits have been to articles, and many of those reverted.

You still call the commons users liars. If that user is wrong, please understand that he may be mistaken, not lying.

I look forward to only constructive edits by you here at Wikipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, out of 181 edits, absolutely none has been constructive edits to the encyclopedia. None. Where are your constructive edits to the encyclopedia? One example will suffice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you say "All of your recent edits to your userpage were unconstructive". Why you deleted them with the history? As you now prove that they are unconstructive? Because I say that most of my userpage edits were constructive Gl dili (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive edits are those which help build this encyclopedia. I do not wish to carry on this pointless debate. Please edit constructively or not at all. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No no no no. Anna, you responsible for your actions to the community Wikipedia! You deleted my userpage under the pretext - "All of your recent edits to your userpage were unconstructive". Give proof or it false accusation Gl dili (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to restore my userpage history, Anna? Gl dili (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will not restore it. Please make constructive edits. If you continue this nonsense, you may be blocked from editing per WP:NOTHERE without further notice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i corrected my behavior. I do not know how to say, in general, I understand you! I'm going to write my userpage if something is wrong, please say, I immediately corrected. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gl dili (talk • contribs) 13:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage

You said in an answer to Anna Frodesiak that you have read WP:UPNOT. If that is true, either you have not understood it or you choose to ignore it. Your current edits to your user page is exactly the kind of unconstructive edits that the guideline UPNOT is trying to avoid. My suggestion is: First blank your user page. Then take your time to read and understand the guideline WP:UPNOT. Then you can try start editing again.

By your own admission here you do not know much English. That is also obvious from the first sentence in your uswer page: "I'm happening what i editor Wikipedia", which does not make any sense in English whatsoever. Maybe it is a good idea to just stop editing English Wikipedia until you have a better grasp of the language? A certain competence is required to be able to contribute. --T*U (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read (Please give me 20-30 minut) Gl dili (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actively learn English, all is well. When I'm not sure, I not makes edits. Userpage, so normal now?

And, this is Anna all blame! Her photos with dog is very cute (yes, I have good eyesight), and she's talking nice. Let then do better not to write anything on my page! She does not understand my feelings? She is my dream, I'm ready for her to do much. Anna super and best! Gl dili (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what is it that you do not understand about "you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia"? You have been asked to start making constructive edits. So far, we have seen none. Unless you are here to help build this encyclopedia, you should not make any edits. --T*U (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the history my userpage, specify what you mean? I edit more than 10-20 edits (details) Gl dili (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gl dili, stop it. Focus your attention on the main encyclopedia, not me, not others, not the rules and what you are allowed to get away with.

If your English is not great, fine, you can go to articles that you are interested in and find reliable media sources and add those sources to the ends of sentences to support the facts there. That would be useful and appreciated.

Please do something in the main encyclopedia and stop this discussion. We've wasted enough time on this and our patience is at an end. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pity that Wikipedia not support YouTube... problem with search image Creative Commons license, I do not know where to find them( Gl dili (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arghhhhh, and you do not want to help me? How find Creative Commons license images? Gl dili (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just say me where find them, please help Gl dili (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But i can find in wikimedia. Ok, example site:wikimedia.org oral sex Gl dili (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you want. Licensing info is here. Images are searchable here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Looking at your recent userpage edit and complete lack of useful edits, I've blocked you per WP:NOTHERE. If you would care to explain how things would be different if unblocked, and provide examples of several constructive edits you would make if unblocked, please do so. If you wish to respond to this block with anything other than these two things, please do not. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you wrote Gl dili (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have trouble understanding regular English, you may be better suited to contribute to Simple English Wikipedia, a special version of English Wikipedia created for those who have trouble understanding the more complex parts of the English language. — Gestrid (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will say it differently: You wrote something bad at your userpage. You did not make any good edits to the main encyclopedia. I think you are not here to help. So, I blocked you. If you disagree: 1. Tell us how your future will be here. 2. Tell us what edits you will make. (Do not tell us anything else.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live and good
Edit interesting article

Gl dili (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to do better than that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Gl dili (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYEES_x9OYY for Saint Anna Gl dili (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

666px Gl dili (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please somebody unlock me. Stop lawlessness Anna

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).

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

Request reason:

First, sorry. I try never not violate the rules of Wikipedia. I swear! You can find reason for my block? I'm want edit interesting me article Wikipedia Gl dili (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That is nowhere near a satisfactory explanation, especially considering all the guidance you have been given above. It seems clear to me that your understanding of English is not good enough for you to communicate properly here, and that means it really is not possible for you to contribute to a project that relies on communication in English. I urge you to stick to the Wikipedia in your native language, and perhaps come back here in a few years when your English is good enough for meaningful communication. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

You have userbox "User has professional knowledge of English" and "This user has professional knowledge of English", well, i'm happy but if my knowledge of English is not so good, It does not mean that you want to block. You understand what I'm writing? Gl dili (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the problems with your conduct. Since you apparently don't even see the problem, I do not think you can avoid a recurrence if you are unblocked. Huon (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Do not worry, I'm not going to break anything. True. 100%. Unblocked please Gl dili (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have still not addressed the reasons for your block, so to prevent further waste of time, I am revoking your talk page access. —DoRD (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

People where are you?

Somebody help already

I came across this while browsing CAT:RFU. Gl dili, at this point your best option is to give up on trying to edit the English wikipedia. Based on the articles you have edited, I am guessing that your native language is Turkish. Your ability in English is far too poor for you to contribute effectively here and all that will happen is you will get stressed out by not being able to communicate with other editors. Other editors will become stressed as they are not able to make you understand what they are talking about. While Wikipedia is free to edit, editors must show they are competent to do so. Please read WP:COMPETENCE. Blackmane (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, my native language is not Turkish (Russian). I believe that I have enough knowledge and experience for edits Wikipedia Gl dili (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My main edits it is articles that fit my interests: PC games, internet, countries, history, etc. Gl dili (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving activities elsewhere

@Anna Frodesiak and DoRD: I happened to talk a look at this editor's global activities. If you are not active in Russian Wikipedia and has seen it already, you might want to take a look at the edits to Gl dili's Russian user page and user talk page today, here. Someone suggested that Gl dili should edit in the Wiki of his native language, but it was probably not this kind of edits they were talking about. Regards! --T*U (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Now also in Turkish Wiki. --T*U (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I am sure he will get globally locked soon. And if he thinks he is making me like him, or hate him, he is not. I would not waste a thought on this person. I just do not care. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to get a ping from them from Russian Wikipedia, but as long as they're out of our hair here I'm happy. And it does, at least, show that we weren't just dealing with poor English here, we were dealing with a genuine troll. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and now they're blocked on trwiki and indeffed on ruwiki. —DoRD (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put in for a global lock a few hours ago. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which was effectuated. --T*U (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Al Arabiya.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Al Arabiya.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]