Jump to content

User talk:Kaz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kaz (talk | contribs) at 21:51, 2 October 2012 (→‎Indefinitely blocked). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Due to prejudiced harassment, this page is regularly blanked in order to protect privacy. If you want a response from this user, please use the email

Indefinitely blocked

This is not an "infinite" block, but you are going to have to convince an admin you are going to stop being disruptive before being unblocked. Beeblebrox gave very clear warning to stop refactoring other people's edits on the article talk page, yet you have done so twice. There is a contentious requested move that you are deeply involved in, but today you decided to not wait for it to close, moved the page yourself, and sabotaged the ability of other editors to revert your move. Enough disruption. The standard template is below. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

In all fairness, I did notify my intention before taking action [1]. I did make a pigs ear of it all I admit and tried to undo my mistakes but it didn't work. Either way, there are about 20 of us waiting for this move to take place, and even Toddy1 agreed it needs to have some sort of qualifier [2]. So Imeriki's suggestion seemed to be the most logical [3]. However, if we go by the book WP:CRITERIA, WP:UCN, and WP:BOLD, there really is no issue here is there? The article has been virtually turned around since its GA listing was revoked, it is finally ready for independent GA review again I think :) Kaz 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Kaz 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=In all fairness, I did notify my intention before taking action [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=515654037&oldid=515591578]. I did make a pigs ear of it all I admit and tried to undo my mistakes but it didn't work. Either way, there are about 20 of us waiting for this move to take place, and even Toddy1 agreed it needs to have some sort of qualifier [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=510436429&oldid=510415516]. So Imeriki's suggestion seemed to be the most logical [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=510398927&oldid=510395064]. However, if we go by the book [[WP:CRITERIA]], [[WP:UCN]], and [[WP:BOLD]], there really is no issue here is there? The article has been virtually turned around since its GA listing was revoked, it is finally ready for independent GA review again I think :) [[User talk:Kaz|Kaz]] 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC) [[User talk:Kaz|Kaz]] 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=In all fairness, I did notify my intention before taking action [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=515654037&oldid=515591578]. I did make a pigs ear of it all I admit and tried to undo my mistakes but it didn't work. Either way, there are about 20 of us waiting for this move to take place, and even Toddy1 agreed it needs to have some sort of qualifier [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=510436429&oldid=510415516]. So Imeriki's suggestion seemed to be the most logical [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=510398927&oldid=510395064]. However, if we go by the book [[WP:CRITERIA]], [[WP:UCN]], and [[WP:BOLD]], there really is no issue here is there? The article has been virtually turned around since its GA listing was revoked, it is finally ready for independent GA review again I think :) [[User talk:Kaz|Kaz]] 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC) [[User talk:Kaz|Kaz]] 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=In all fairness, I did notify my intention before taking action [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=515654037&oldid=515591578]. I did make a pigs ear of it all I admit and tried to undo my mistakes but it didn't work. Either way, there are about 20 of us waiting for this move to take place, and even Toddy1 agreed it needs to have some sort of qualifier [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=510436429&oldid=510415516]. So Imeriki's suggestion seemed to be the most logical [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karaylar_%26_Karaims&diff=510398927&oldid=510395064]. However, if we go by the book [[WP:CRITERIA]], [[WP:UCN]], and [[WP:BOLD]], there really is no issue here is there? The article has been virtually turned around since its GA listing was revoked, it is finally ready for independent GA review again I think :) [[User talk:Kaz|Kaz]] 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC) [[User talk:Kaz|Kaz]] 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kaz&oldid=515695000"