User talk:69.22.228.31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Puppeter template.svg It has been established that this IP address has been used by Sedamjedan.
Please refer to contributions or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.

August 2014[edit]

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

Information icon Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Demet Muftuoglu with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. —Frosty 03:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (69.22.228.31) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

69.22.228.31 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

why have I been blocked? This is outrageous. What is a sock poppet investigation and why has my account been targeted? User:Callanecc is clearly abusing his role.

Decline reason:

See WP:EBUR the panda ₯’ 08:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.


Template:Unblock review

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amanda Eliasch (August 26)[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason is:

The basic notability standard for a visual artist is having their work in the permanent collection of major museums, or being the subject of substantial criticism or academic discussion, or winning a major award . None of these are the case here. The references are not about her art, but about aspects of her personal life. That's tabloid material, and the relevant policy is that WP is not a tabloid.

It is possible for a really important society figure to be "notable for being notable:, but this is a rare exception and requires much more than the relatively small amount of material here.

The usual criterion for accepting an AfC is a reasonable likelihood of passing AfD. Some define it at 51%. I prefer to use a higher level, like 66%. Biut its irrelevant here, because several discussions at afd have shown thatthis article is not going to be accepted there.

I really don't think there's any point in working on the material further until she wins a major award or otherwise meet the WP:CREATIVe standard.

DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Concurring that the argument for WP:CREATIVE is pretty thin, I nonetheless thought there was a decent case for meeting WP:BASIC. If this were in AfD, I think I would have voted to Keep on that basis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
FWIW completely agree, per my response to DGG on my Talk page. If someone passes WP:GNG then there is no reason to decline them because they don't pass the alternative guidance of WP:CREATIVE. It's a strange re-interpretation of WP:GNG by an experienced editor. I'd add that the article hasn't been subject to an AfD decision yet, because OrangeMike speedy deleted the previous article before the AfD was concluded. Sionk (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I replied to this at User talk:Sionk DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Sock block.svg
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks because it is suspected that this IP address is being used in manner which is abusive and against policy. Multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Any contributions made while evading blocks or bans can be reverted or deleted without discussion. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

69.22.228.31 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Callanecc is abusing his wikipedia power and privileges here. Unfair. Why block my IP just because he doesn't like the person I have written about whose page has now actually been approved and reviewed by other editors who are happy for it to stay. 69.22.228.31 (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

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. Favonian (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

Favonian, no I do not know what I have been blocked for. See message above. You do not seem to explain. Very unfair. Do you normally abuse power in this manner? Why have I been blocked? Give exact and precise reason. 69.22.228.31 (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfair treatment[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

69.22.228.31 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

why has my IP been blocked? Give exact reason. 69.22.228.31 (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It's quite explicit: Block evasion, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sedamjedan. --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.

Completely unfair[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

69.22.228.31 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

That is exactly my point. I am not sedemjdeam and I do not know what or who that is. What is a sockpoppuet? And why am I being accused of being sedemjedam? 69.22.228.31 (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Clear WP:DUCK case of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and 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.