User talk:Shingling334

July 2016[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Halil Kayikci has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Halil Kayikci was changed by Shingling334 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.962845 on 2016-07-26T14:54:31+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ercan International Airport. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Ercan International Airport was changed by Shingling334 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.890498 on 2016-07-27T10:28:59+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me-helped[edit]

Please could you add more information and improve the quality of text to Halil Kayikci and make it anti orphan Link to article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halil_Kayikci — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shingling334 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 27 July 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shingling334, if you want an article to be improved, you're welcome to be bold and edit it!

But if you want someone to do it for you, or to help you improve it, you may like to ask a user who has already edited the article by asking at their talk page, such as @OnionRing. If you want help de-orphaning the article, look at this Wikipedia help page, WP:DE-ORPHAN, start at step 2 and that will explain what to do. Also, it would be great if you could explain clearly what you would like to be changed in the article, saying what you would like to be added or removed, as we can't really help you if all we know is that you want the article improved. Hopefully this helped, but if you want more help just click here to ask another question, or leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. Seagull123 Φ 13:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A training doesn't make a person notable. Do you know how many people participate in the training? Certainly more than one, but only the astronaut will become notable.Xx236 (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider that there is no https://tr.wikipedia.org/Halil Kayıkçı page.Xx236 (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your moves[edit]

Shingling334, welcome to Wikipedia, thank you for your interest in Cypriot-related articles; as someone who also works on that area, I hope that we can work together to improve Wikipedia's coverage of this topic.

Place names do not need to be moved to Turkish just because they are in Northern Cyprus. We use the most common name in English-language reliable resources (as this is English Wikipedia), per our policy WP:COMMONNAME. This is usually done through Google Books searches, see Talk:Trikomo, Cyprus for example. Usually, former names (which aren't necessarily Greek by the way, Bellapais isn't in Greek) tend to be more common in sources (and many of these new names have no historical grounds anyway) so our pages use those. Of course, there are exceptions, such as Gönyeli and Hamitköy, but we need to discuss these case by case on talk pages. Some of the moves you have made are thus not acceptable: not even Turkish Cypriots use the name Beylerbeyi, for example, and Bellapais has near-universal use in English. Limnitis is still "Limnidi" to locals and Limnitis remains more common in books (around at least twice as common, as I have seen).

If you believe a page should be moved, please propose at the talk page with your evidence and rationale. Moving just because you think that Turkish names should be used is not acceptable. If you continue moving pages en masse or revert my moves without due discussion, I will have to report you to an admin. Thank you.

--GGT (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your move to Aeroflot Russian Airlines from Aeroflot has been undone. Please discuss at the article's talk before proceeding with such changes.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Cyprus, you may be blocked from editing. Dr. K. 17:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at Halil Kayıkçı. Eye snore 15:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by introducing incorrect information, as you did with this edit to Tzatziki. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 21:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Tzatziki shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Eye snore 21:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Shingling334 reported by User:Eyesnore (Result: ). Thank you. Eye snore 21:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Tzatziki. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm RainFall. I noticed that in this edit to Rauf Denktaş, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — RainFall 15:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of Presidents of Turkey, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. SA 13 Bro (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Tzatziki, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Tzatziki. Serols (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Tzatziki. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have increased the duration of your block since you edited through an IP address during it. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you continue to edit war through IP addresses, I've made the block on this account indefinite. Unless and until you appeal the block on this account, any edit by you on any other page will be treated as vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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/Shingling334, 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.

Largoplazo (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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/Shingling334, 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.

Largoplazo (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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/Shingling334, 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.

Largoplazo (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2016 (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).

Shingling334 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

You knew perfectly well that your chronic sockpupppetry was inappropriate. It's been going on for more than six months. You have no hope for an unblock at this point. Your best option is to wait six months with absolutely no editing at all, then apply under WP:SO. Yamla (talk) 13:44, 21 February 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.

Dear Wikipedia I'm very sorry for Sockppupetry I will not do it again I read all the rules on Wikipedia and now I know how to use it responsibly so sorry about doing this I repeat I will not do this again thanks for taking the time to read.

Your request has been denied. All that changing "denied" to "approved" will do is mess up the template -- it will not unblock you. As Yamla explained, you need to wait six months without any sockpuppetry per WP:Standard offer. After that, then you can re-apply to be unblocked but in that unblock request you need to promise to avoid doing the things that lead to your original block (which was sockpuppetry and edit warring).

Changing "denied" to "approved" looks like an attempt to "hack" the system into getting unblocked (a very bad attempt, but still an attempt), or else somehow trick another admin into thinking that you were supposed to be unblocked. We generally do not unblock people who falsify records or otherwise attempt to circumvent their blocks (that's why your sockpuppets were blocked) -- do not try to "unblock" yourself again, it will only make things worse for yourself. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 22 February 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).

Shingling334 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

dear wikipedia i have just discovered that my friend was using this account to create articles but he was using it not responsibly and he thought he could just edit any articles and then he made different accounts to get me into even more trouble THIS WAS NOT ME who got the account blocked i have told my friend off please unblock it was done deliberately by my friend

Decline reason:

We've heard that so many times... Max Semenik (talk) 20:54, 12 March 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.

unblock[edit]

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).

Shingling334 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock my account. I have been accused by many administrators

Decline reason:

Well ... yes, you have been "accused" by many users of inappropriate behavior, and were it not already self-evidently inappropriate by simply looking at your edit history (even your unblock requests themselves, e.g., the sterling conduct of changing "denied" to "approved" above), you have admitted what you have been accused of, so this unblock request provides no basis whatever to unblock you. The numerous unblock requests, coupled with the failure to provide the slightest compelling reason to unblock (with this one taking the cake), indicate to me that your talk page privileges should be removed upon any further request that is not really thoughtful and calls to at least a valid basis for unblocking after reading the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. I doubt you can provide a compelling request, but this is very far from one. I think you ought to take Yamla's advice above.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:03, 9 May 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.

unblock[edit]

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).

Shingling334 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia it's been months now that I have been blocked I would really apritiate that if you unblocked me. I have been reading the Wikipedia policy and the rules of war editing and I do 100% agree and understand now. I was unshure about Wikipedia at the time and now I know IT IS WRONG this is a letter of apology from me and I am very annoyed of my self doing that.

Thanks.

Decline reason:

We neither need nor want an apology from you. Since you have already claimed that this account is compromised, it cannot be unblocked, regardless of whether you post an appropriate unblock appeal or not (pro tip: this one falls very much under "not"). Therefore, since future appeals will be a waste of everyone's time, I have revoked your talkpage access. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:22, 5 June 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.

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

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/Turkish from Cyprus, 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.

DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 12:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shingling334. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

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/Shingling334, 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.

Largoplazo (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]