User talk:Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen

Welcome![edit]

Hi Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternately, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen (April 13)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Utopes was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SERIAL ^# 14:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about you stop abusive behaviours of some admins like User:El_C instead of judging new users with good and bad faith? Thank you, Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Doug Weller talk 14:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:176.33.53.10#Armenian_Genocide_whitewashing. El_C 16:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen has been accepted[edit]

Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

GeneralPoxter (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Imre, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 13:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once unsourced material is removed it cannot be replaced without a reliable source[edit]

See WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Van, Turkey, you may be blocked from editing. Shadow4dark (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 ~~~~}}. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:11, 18 July 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I ask that you lift the block for we did nothing against Wikipedia rules, definitely no socket puppetry. Can we not be a group of people with the same interests? Can we not edit from an IP address and by logging in an account at the same time. Of course we can. There is nothing wrong with that. What LTA are we accused of? The accusations sound like double standards applied against us. Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Can we not edit from an IP address and by logging in an account at the same time. No, you can't, that is intentional deception. Can we not be a group of people with the same interests? If you are a group of people coordinating your edits without disclosing that, no, you can't. Your use of "we" also suggests you're sharing your account, which is also not permitted. Regardless, checkuser-verified abuse of multiple accounts, unblock request declined. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Still have not answered how we abused the accounts. Some admins suggested LTA? There are none. If there are any, please let us know so we don't repeat it. I ask that you unblock, or set a time period. Indefinitely is not a solution and is not fair by any means. Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen/Archive. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

My block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, because if you check my edits you will see that I made plenty of contributions to Wikipedia and was bold in making edits, without insulting some users and kept within the rules of Wikipedia which I read and keep learning. Just because one person complained does not mean I am guilty. I may have made one mistake but that is so minute compared to all the additions made, taking the time to abide by the best syntax, and making sure to give references and reliable sources. Are these to be held against me? I would have thought these were good qualities but it put me under the spot and I was accused of socket puppetry when that is certainly not the case. From what occurred, one could get the impression that whoever complains makes them right and gives them the upper hand. I ask that you review my case and unblock me so I can continue to make beneficial contributions to Wikipedia. Thank you, Ömer Nasuhi Bilmen (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you still do not concede that you engaged in meatpuppetry at a minimum, if not sockpuppetry(which has been confirmed by a checkuser with technical evidence) there are no grounds to consider lift the block, so I am declining your request. You'll likely have only one more chance to address the reason for the block before losing access to this page. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2020 (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.