User talk:TheWaves

TheWaves, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TheWaves! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Template Ataturk Monuments

I added your template Template:Atatürk Monuments to the Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Turkey) under your name.--Dustum Khan (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it has unfortunately been deleted also.--TheWaves (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review for National Ascension Monument

I've made the article Draft:National Ascension Monument to be added in your template. It is an Ataturk monument in Antalya. Can you please review it if you have time? Thanks!--Dustum Khan (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it looks like it has been deleted. Did you use verifiable sources?--TheWaves (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Artists Park

I have also added your article Artists' Park to the 1000 challange.--Dustum Khan (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, however it has been deleted.--TheWaves (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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/Finley22 Waterman, 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.

Quinton Feldberg (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Abdi İpekçi Peace Monument for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Abdi İpekçi Peace Monument is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdi İpekçi Peace Monument until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be deleted. It is notable and if need be I can find many good sources about it, in addition to the newspapers of record already listed as references on the article. As for prolific pov editor commentary, I must have been confused with someone else.--TheWaves (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

It seems I have been caught in a feud between two editors that have been abusing multiple accounts. As a result of this I was blocked as it was suspected that this was also one of those accounts being abused by those editors. This account is however not under the control of anyone else but me. As a result of this feud, all of my articles, save a few, have unfortunately been deleted. I ask that my articles be restored and that I may be unblocked or that I may be unblocked so that I may request my articles to be restored.

Decline reason:

The request is declined per discussion below (thanks everyone for your input). No unblock request is likely to be successful until you come clean about your sock puppetry. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:23, 26 October 2017 (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.

You are blocked as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Finley22_Waterman/Archive#15_October_2017_2. I am going to ask @Zzuuzz, Callanecc, and Drmies: for their comment on this request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding some of the coincidences (many of which are visible to admins) absolutely extraordinary, however, on balance I'd be inclined to go with the first result, at least from a CU point of view, - inconclusive. Drmies knows what I've seen, but maybe he's seen something I haven't. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if CU info is inconclusive, there are elements that came to light that clearly make an identification likely, and the editorial interests and behavior make this a rather perfect match, as was pointed out at the SPI. The alert admin will note that I have not used the "confirmed" parameter on the talk page. Given the overwhelming behavioral match, any admin who considered unblocking will have to look very carefully. Of course, if it would turn out that Finley would stop socking, then unblocking this account might make more sense. Such an admin might be interested in this overlap, besides the similarity in user names. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose any unblock. When the CU results are less than copper-bottomed then behavioural evidence is pivotal. The overlap in articles is surely beyond coincidence. The initial edits have plainly been made by an experienced editor and this is unexplained. The user page being red for the first few months, many edits marked as minor and no edit summaries are all Finley trademarks. The behavioural evidence is compelling. Just Chilling (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]