User talk:TheWindInTheTrees

Welcome!

Hello, TheWindInTheTrees, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdi İpekçi Peace Monument

Hi! Your expansion is much appreciated. However, they need to be cited by reliable source. Please do not forget. CeeGee 22:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its based on the sources already in the article.--TheWindInTheTrees (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Justice and Development Party (Turkey), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nogai (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--TheWindInTheTrees (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I haven't made any intentionally disruptive edits. It seems like I have been blocked in relation to unrelated events. As you may know, wikipedia is blocked in Turkey, and therefore to access if from here we must spoof our location. The services we use often lend the same IP adresses to multiple people, some of which have apparently abused the service. I ask that I be exempt from this block because I want to continue contributing and improving articles.

Decline reason:

This is a Checkuser block so there is persuasive technical evidence apart from the IP. You have been blocked as a sock of User:Finley22 Waterman. You need to explain your relationship. A simple denial will get you nowhere. Just Chilling (talk) 14:02, 12 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.

@Just Chilling: That was an explanation. If you will not unblock me in the very least redact my above statement, I'm sure you will understand why I want that.--TheWindInTheTrees (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement contains no personal information, neither your real name nor your IP address so there is nothing to redact. Your failed appeal must not be removed whilst you are blocked. Just Chilling (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Chilling:I would still prefer the some part of the text removed if that would be possible.--TheWindInTheTrees (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible because other reviewing admins need to see your appeal, as is, to have an accurate understanding of the unblock decline. If you wish to publish a correction you may do so, below this comment. Just Chilling (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Business

@Ansh666: Hello, you recently deleted the page Borazan İsmail Çavuş. It was among a whole slew of pages nominated for speedy deletions that were created by me, however the one I am referring to that you deleted was made by another user. That user was banned, but they obviously made that article before they were banned. The article was deleted under Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G5. This would mean that the article was falsely reported and it did not satisfy that criterion which you deleted it for.--TheWindInTheTrees (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the note. ansh 666 23:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and NP.--TheWindInTheTrees (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of TAMEK for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TAMEK 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/TAMEK 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. Dysklyver 21:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Eren Bülbül for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eren Bülbül 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/Eren Bülbül 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. Dysklyver 21:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Business

@Just Chilling: The article that you deleted, Güzel İstanbul, which I contributed to was recently deleted by you as a G5, however it does not satisfy this. The article was not created by a banned user, nor was it created during when I was banned.

Nomination of Valley of the Wolves: Homeland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Valley of the Wolves: Homeland 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/Valley of the Wolves: Homeland 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. Dysklyver 20:18, 13 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/TheWindInTheTrees, 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.

S. Salim (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Valley of the Wolves: Homeland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Valley of the Wolves: Homeland 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/Valley of the Wolves: Homeland (2nd nomination) 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. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks N'Stuff

@Drmies: I appreciate your honesty in not liking to delete articles like you say here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdi İpekçi Peace Monument, an article I contributed greatly at some point. However i'm not sure if you noticed but after I was marked as a suspected sock, User:Quinton_Feldberg wasted no time in speedy deleting virtually every well sourced and researched article I created. Articles # 701 to 721 for instance on the Wikipedia:The_1000_Challenge_(Turkey), the challenge which i created the articles for. I hear theres some loophole that allows this. But why would someone delete articles mainly on sculpture with nothing political or anything? Is there some kind of grudge? He was later himself blocked as a sock. So i dug a bit deeper...--TheWindInTheTrees (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+ he also went and reverted every single contribution I ever made to any article, even if many people had edited it afterwards he went in and specifically removed my contributions--TheWindInTheTrees (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well...you are not just a suspected sock, you are a blocked sock, you and Darktzhaar and Zerki Karakiron and ANNAFU RBLX ("Anna fuck you"?) and Hawk369 RBLX and Heroes of Robloxia and a whole bunch more and of course 32430.23432.4B24, merrily trying to crucify me under false pretenses. Quinton Feldberg (you didn't have to tag him) is not an administrator and thus is not deleting any article. There's no loophole, though we do have a rule, CSD criterion G5; maybe that's what you mean. But yeah, anyone has the right to remove a sock's edits, Finley, and some think that's a good idea. Now, I'd enjoy a little chat with you, possibly even in another language, but I haven't forgotten how you tried to shaft me, so sayonara. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i'm referring to that loophole where anyone gets a free ride on deleting articles and edits made by a blocked person, (a person suspected to be evading a block) to be specific. Also i'm not sure if you have thought about those accounts you mentioned not actually being me? Regardless, it's really remorseless don't you think? Deleting loads of carefully written and carefully sourced and researched work? And now it has all been irrecoverably lost. Had I known this would happen I would have kept a copy of my work and published it on a persona blog or something at least. So it's not wasted effort. Anyway, not sure if you are saying you want to chat or don't, but I get the feeling that you do. Anyways as I said i did dig deeper... and i did make some finds.--TheWindInTheTrees (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that is all terrifically exciting. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Im'a let you finish. Well that is all terrifically exciting, but.... ? --TheWindInTheTrees (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You familiar with what inevitably happens when there is no legal alternative? Hint Hint Catalonia.
- The one who holds the power has the responsibility to hold the door open to those 'misbehaving'. Then it is up to them to walk through. Like a teachers job.--TheWindInTheTrees (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically I'm providing you with a path right now, will you take it @Drmies:? Well you know what they say, teachers also learn a lot from their students.
- From my edits it is obvious that I am serious about making positive and constructive contributions to Wikipedia. It is up to you, the admins, to provide the path back to legally editing.--TheWindInTheTrees (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A real shame if you aren't willing to do this.

Pff. Wikipedia:Standard offer--that is the door, but you can't go a day without finding a proxy and a couple of new accounts. You can pontificate all you like, but none of that is relevant. You're just trolling on a website, wanting to play without playing by the rules. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trolling, and i don't believe that any of my behavior can be considered trolling. Have you considered that I may not be making all those accounts that you speak of? I may agree with you that someone appears to be trolling but i'm the victim of it not the source. I also don't find you calling me a "sock of a very prolific and very disruptive POV editor" fair, as there is very little truth to that statement.

reply

I got your message . But I can't communicate in tr-WP. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC) @Nedim Ardoğa:[reply]

Yes I would like to ask you about using some of the photos on your Pintrest on an article. I have sent you a message on there.--TheWindInTheTrees (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of my pinterest photos are also included in Wiki Commons. Please see [1] Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

Blocked users retain access to their talk page solely to enable an unblock appeal. Since you are using it to correspondent with other editors,and not to appeal, I am revoking your access. If you wish to appeal your block you must now use WP:UTRS. Just Chilling (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]