User talk:İsmail Kendir

Request to terminate the current access block I have

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).

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

Request reason:

You dont like me, I don't like you. I'll follow that ridiculous rules, no need to keep me blocked. Easy and understandable. İsmail Kendir (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:45, 3 May 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Blocking me is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, because I understand that you blocked me thinking I'm disrupting Wikipedia, I will try not to cause damage and I will make useful contributions as such as I believe I majorly done in the past. İsmail Kendir (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does nothing to convince me you understand why your edits were inappropriate, or how your future edits would significantly differ. Yamla (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

It may sound a little irrelevant, but you are currently preventing a user from making a useful contribution, in other words, you are disrupting Wikipedia. Because if you don't unblock me, I won't be able to contribute neither beneficial nor harmful. I need to be able to contribute if you want me to useful contribute. Please bro, I got more job to do in this website. İsmail Kendir (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I got more job to do" is exactly I am declining your unblock: it demonstrates that you are here to advance an agenda, not build a neutral, fact-based encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

You should think that what was I trying to say by saying "I got more job to do" up above. I mean that I got more "contributions and studies" to do. So, if we are clear on this issue, I repeat: You are currently preventing a user from making a useful contribution, in other words, you are disrupting Wikipedia. Because if you don't unblock me, I won't be able to contribute neither beneficial nor harmful. I need to be able to contribute if you want me to useful contribute. İsmail Kendir (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. SQL ^{Query me!} 18:58, 5 May 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

You blocked me claiming and / or thinking that I was harming Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I assure you that I will not harm Wikipedia. I have work to do, articles to write; so I want to get into contributing. May you click that unblock button, please? İsmail Kendir (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The claim of harm to Wikipedia was correct. Nothing on this talk page gives me any reason to believe you fully grasp our guidelines and will abide by them. I guess I'm happy to see some of the vitriol from earlier comments has disappeared, but I must warn you that further personal attacks will result in your talk page access being revoked. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2021 (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.

With all due respect, if you are unwilling to abide by the message that says "Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked", what confidence are we to have that you will edit constructively if unblocked? —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did not know that I may not. I'll not delete them, it's cool. İsmail Kendir (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please @İsmail Kendir: patience. Sit still for a while. I believe that you can have a role on wikipedia. Show constructive suggestions on expanding or creating encyclopedic content, with emphasis on scholarly and secular sources. Put your personal scientific and theologic education in Turkey aside for a moment, and try to embrace this unique site's standards in your editing. You may not agree or for that matter, need to advocate a secular view, as long as you adhere to wikipedia's policy. Other users with whom you disagree with are not opponents but fellow team members. Conflicts may happen and through wikipedia guidelines, those conflicts can be resolved.Ip says (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hey, do not call me "secular" please, I am allergic to this word. I'm OK with writing "neutral" but that does not means I'll be neutral directly myself or I have to be. Since this "unique site" in your words is a place to gather entire knowledge of humanity, I think I don't need to put my scientific and religious education aside neither. So that's it. İsmail Kendir (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - At this website you're not allowed to make religious propaganda. In fact, no editor is allowed to do that. And it won't change anytime soon. We don't allow anyone to state in the voice of Wikipedia that Islam/Christianity/Judaism/Hinduism/Buddhism/atheism are objectively true. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Who said I'm here to make religious propaganda? I'm here to express what I will write here in neutral sentences. But I know that Islam is so magnificently true that neutral facts will one day cry out the truth of Islam toward hearts and brains of anyone that can think; that's my motto. I believe that we don't need to even force people. İsmail Kendir (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The Wikipedia Community is the judge of what amounts to religious propaganda. You have to obey our rules in order to edit here; we don't have to obey your rules. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think you were able to understand what I tried to say. What did I say? I said I write what will be written with neutral sentences, this is what you want from me. But as long as this site is truly neutral, it will allow people to understand that Islam is the truth, despite to even if you do not want to admit it. İsmail Kendir (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Please stop arguing and wait for the result of unblock request review. This applies to everybody here but, in particular, I advise İsmail Kendir against making unnecessary statements that just make it even less likely that the request will be accepted. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        A'ight, Im waitin' already. İsmail Kendir (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The comment "Islam is the truth, despite to even if you do not want to admit it," is a prime example of what is delaying your unblock. It is very easy for me to read that and interpret your statement as you saying that your belief in Islam will cause you to edit with a pro-Islam perspective and rejecting neutral, factual sources for religious ones.
        No religion holds a monopoly on truth: not Islam, not Christianity, not Judaism, not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It may feel like Wikipedia's version of truth is an atheistic truth. If so, it's because atheists don't look at religious perspectives for guidance but focus on objective, observable facts. Wikipedia's WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Reliable sources policies work on those lines: events should be written about in articles based on reliable sources, and preferably independent ones. The encyclopedia does not yield to religious doctrine or polity.
        One personal note: yes, I'm a member of an organized religion. The teachings—or truths, if you prefer—of my church are the lens by which I look at my own behaviour. Other than being mindful of how I treat my fellow editors, it does not influence my editing. Even in articles related to my religion, what is "truth" is dictated by what is shown in the historical record and independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I tried to say what I want to say in literally in every way I could, so there is only a single wording type remains: Ismail makes contributions no with Islamic sentences. Ismail makes contributions with neutral sentences. But Ismail knows neutral and scientific facts pushes non-muslim people to Islam, this fact no changes because you deny or admit. İsmail Kendir (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I kindly request, could you please remove this block of no meaningness you have on me? I promised, and can still promise you to I'll contributing usefully. By the way, please do not expect me to answer your comments further this point. I cannot do this as people's prejudice against me increases with every single sentence I say. İsmail Kendir (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have requested unblock five times already; all you did in the later four was basically repeat the same non-argument. No, wait a minute ... you arrogantly insisted you "had work to do" and laughably attempted to turn our logic against us, arguing that since you wanted to edit and we were refusing to unblock you, we were the ones disrupting the encyclopedia. Really now ... you come across as if your religion is one in which God has to worship you because you're so damned important to the world. I am even less convinced that you are here to edit an encyclopedia than I would have been if you had posted no unblock requests at all.

You should thank the other admins who reviewed your unblock requests profusely. They were far more indulgent than they had to be. They let you make two more unblock requests than you should have been allowed.

Well that ends right here and now. You have wasted far too much of our time for any good you might ever have done. So now, in addition to declining your request, I shall revoke your access to those page to prevent from making any more. Just as you are clearly not here to edit an encyclopedia, we are clearly not here to indulge your increasingly frivolous requests that you be allowed to do so. I ... cast ... YOU ... OUT!!!!!!!

Have a great day. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2021 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devrim Saltoğlu moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Devrim Saltoğlu, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/İsmail Kendir. 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)} 12:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 44435

UTRS appeal #44435 is closed. Noting global lock. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ufuk Özkan

Hello, İsmail Kendir. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ufuk Özkan, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ufuk Özkan

Hello, İsmail Kendir. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ufuk Özkan".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Devrim Saltoğlu

Hello, İsmail Kendir. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Devrim Saltoğlu, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Devrim Saltoğlu

Hello, İsmail Kendir. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Devrim Saltoğlu".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Kalk Gidelim

Hello, İsmail Kendir. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kalk Gidelim, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]