User talk:Kaz

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 The article has been virtually turned around since its GA listing was revoked, it is finally ready for independent GA review again I think :) Kaz 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Kaz 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]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 ~~~~}}

"Notification" four minutes before the move doesn't count. Indeed, calling it "notification" is dishonest. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being beligerent here, but in all fairness, that comment came weeks after the previous one being ignored didn't it? Kaz 22:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, you can't pretend nothing happened, that your edits weren't deemed disruptive. We are not bothered by the technicalities of the move but by the move itself--on top of the talk page behavior, the battleground mentality, and the level of disruption you managed to unleash on the article. That needs to be addressed if an unblock is ever to be requested and granted. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well no one seems to have noticed or complained about that (unless privately to you) but anyway I apologised discretely and asked if you could remove such edit summaries so no one could b=get hurt by my exasperation on my own talk page and do something about blocking this page from harassment from by my stalker. So where do we go from here? Kaz

Moreover, I told you about attacking people with edit-summaries, and a few seconds later you did it again. Not good. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again with all due respect, imagining for the moment that I "unleashed" a "battleground mentality" at Crimean Karaites, without any evidence than than "because they said so" are the edits of the users you are serving (e.g. this one [4]) and the articles de-listing [5] really better than my fully referenced clearly written and most importantly Neutral article? It is extremely easy to destroy a good article, but very difficult to build one especially when you are the only one who speaks english well enoug to write about it, and when there are religious cults all over the internet (not WP) hell bent on twisting the facts about this tiny endangered ethnic group to back up their own religious ideologies who no-doubt have supporters on WP. As I said it is easy to destroy, but will any of you please have the integrity to read through the comparison of the articles to see if you have really singled out the right person here for blocking? [6] I do hope at least one admin will make the effort. Indeed it looks like two different topics. But Toddy1 calls it a POV fork if I try to write the article at Karaims. Heaven knows why he does not want the English speaking world to know the facts about us? Heaven knows why his team want to procure our history for themselves. Either they are Jews who hate Christ or they are Karaims who love Christ. If they want to be Jews for Jesus then they should just move along. It is not right to twist history. For those of you who can use a google translator I would like to leave you with this thought. If they are the peer-reviewed experts we are the fringe, then why does UNESCO take our side? Here [7] Please read page 61. If anyone reads Lithuanian I can also provide you with a Lithuanian government sponsored publication which also includes the Lord's Prayer. I really sincerely hope one of you will have the integrity to look into this matter seriously. Best regards to you all. Do WP:CRITERIA, WP:UCN, and WP:BOLD mean nothing any more? Kaz 22:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]