User talk:Al Khazar

I made changes to WZ-10 and Type-99 pages

Hello, the reason I made changes to the WZ-10 and Type-99 changes is that I have noticed that you posted many incorrect and bias information regarding Chinese military hardware. I just came across Type-99 and WZ-10 and saw you undo changes which are not reasonable so I reverted them. Especially the Type-99 page, where you claim that it is a variant of the T-72 which is totally not true !! I have googled the sources you provided, they are nothing but personal blogs and forums. I have added sources to debunk your false claim. Now, I will revert the Type-99 page back. I do not care about the WZ-10 page.

Thank you.

Full Apology

Listen, you were right I did act uncivil and would like to formally apologize about it. After seeing the way you were talking about Karaites and Sephardim/Mizrahim I was under the impression you were going to try to make all Jews out to be Rabbinic Ashkenazi Jews. I do hope though that you have learned something about Karaite Judaism. Any way I'm formally apologizing here. I do think you should consider however how your username might be problematic. I hope you can forgive me and if you want I can try to erase that part of the discussion. I hope in the future we can work together for the betterment of not only Wikipedia but Jewry as well. Anyway do look up Karaite Judaism and the difference between that and the Crimean Karaites. And please accept my apology.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I fully accept your apology. Karaite Judaism is very interesting and I'll be sure to read more about it. I admit that my username can cause some people to be wary of me when I edit articles related to Jewish people and Judaism. But that never occurred to me because I was more interested with Central Asian history at the time than the Khazar theory. I'm glad you took the time to note your mistake and apologize and I'd also like to thank you for being empathetic regarding my username. Khazar (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

So here's a kitty. We good?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Rainbowofpeace has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Yep, we're good. Everyone loves kittens! Khazar (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Russian Jews contribution barnstar

		The Barnstar of David
		For proposing a new yet rational style for the Russian Jews infobox. Also, for taking part in the discussion and helping reach a quick consesus. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

		The Civility Barnstar
		For taking an active part in the discussion regarding the Russian Jews infobox, and for reverting edits which were done without a discussion. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Israeli Jews Barnstar

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

Thank you for sorting out the Israeli Jews infobox! Because the new collage to the infobox was inserted by me in a different format from the original infobox, all the information disappeared. As the tireless contributor you are, you sorted out the problems and brought the infobox to a perfect condition. I must mention, it's not the first time you improve and fix collages to various pages. Mr. Sort It Out (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

SPYDER

I appreciate your effort to make SPYDER a better article! Flayer (talk) 07:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm replacing all the references with reliable sources like pages from Rafael's official website. Khazar (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

SPYDER G.A. recommendations

User:Nick-D kindly responded to a request to check the article over. Here are his recommendations in full;

Hi, articles are raised to GA status after passing a GA review via WP:GAN - typically a single editor reviews each nomination. The criteria articles need to meet to reach GA status are set out at Wikipedia:Good article criteria, and the instructions for nominating articles are at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. You might also want to look for articles on comparable topics which are at GA status for some practical guidance - there's a comprehensive list at Wikipedia:Good articles/Warfare#Weapons, equipment and buildings. I'm not at all familiar with the SPYDER system (or air defence systems more generally to be honest), but from a quick skim of the article the main things which are missing are material on the development of the system and an independent assessment of its performance (the technical aspects of the article are mainly referenced to its manufacturer's website). A discussion of the roles it fills in each country would also be useful. The operational use and export sections are also duplicative (with it being unclear if Georgia did in fact operate this system), and I'd be interested to know why the Israeli Defense Force doesn't operate this apparently-successful Israeli system. I hope that this is helpful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This gives some indications as to areas of weakness indicating improvement. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Al Khazar,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

A kitten for you!

I am sorry to see that Shulinjiang has you in his cross hairs as well. Jokes and insults about the Holocaust are never a good thing and I didn't expect him to stoop so low. Again I am sorry that you had to get involved in this and I hope this kitten will cheer you up :)

Pvpoodle (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kitty! Yeah, that Anti-Semitism was pretty low of him. You don't have anything to feel sorry for because I would always be happy to get rid of POV pushing. Khazar (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry your user page was vandalised

And also that your name has been bandied about in an unpleasant manner. I have no idea whether we agree on politics or any matter, but I do not like to see fellow editors being attacked. Fiddle Faddle 09:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your condolences. I recently got page protection so I'm safe for months :-)

Ashkenazi Jews Lead

Hi there, as you asked I put forward my rationale behind the minor edits to the article lead on the talk page. However, based on WP:ROWN, I hope you can understand why I feel justified in keeping my edit until the conversation plays out (WP:BOLD only mandates a pre-discussion return to the status quo in major edits, and I think we can agree mine doesn't change the general meaning of the article.) Look forward to your feedback! Benjitheijneb (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Warning

If you make another edit to Ashkenazi Jews to push your POV, against consensus, I will ask for you to be banned from this article. Debresser (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. J.K Nakkila (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• So at face value there's not much to this, but I've thoroughly reviewed the dispute. The discussion has been going on since February and over time the case appears to have sufficiently been made in favor of including the content you keep trying to remove and you do appear to be the only one contesting its inclusion, with never-ending new excuses, all of which have been amply debated and argued. Some of the points raised by you appear to be nothing short of a misrepresentation of policy (claiming the content represented an "extreme" or "fringe" point of view) and you have also personally attacked the other editors in the dispute, accusing them of bad faith and threatening them with administrative sanctions. Multiple sources have now been presented and there is a sound consensus that the content can be included. After taking a month off, you have returned directly to this dispute and resumed removing the content without any discussion. For both ignoring the extensive discussion that has already taken place and resuming a long-running edit war and dispute in which you have already conducted yourself substandardly, you leave me no choice but to block you for a week. I strongly suggest you change your approach from editing upon your return. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Forgive my ignorance, but why did I recieve a one week block? It appears too draconian for a first time "offender". I've rationally presented my points on the talk page and I've been away on a break for over a month prior to today. Another important note I should add is that if you're going to accuse me of personal attacks, be sure to actually back up the claims with evidence. Nowhere in the personal attacks page does it say that accusations of bad faith or threating to call an administrator is considered a personal attack. Could I please have an actual administrator review this report rather than one with "administrative priviledges"? This so-called edit war is not between me and the "overwelming consensus". It's against two other editors Khazar (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC) :Since I'm being ridiculed for following Wikipedia's standards to the best of my abilities, I have no choice but to post a comprehensive rebuttal to this defamation. *"While this is not an ongoing, rapid edit war, it is certainly a long-running one." Although it started all in February, it ceased to exist after the two users User:J.K Nakkila and User:Amakuha came into agreements following User:Iryna Harpy's inquiries. It was revived in June after more sources appeared and Iryna Harpy chose to not be for or against it. Since June, it was a dispute between those two and I. *"(i.e., multiple sources were eventually provided which resulted in the other user who was objecting ceding that it qualified for inclusion);" "For the record, however, I maintain that I'm reluctant simply because there hasn't been much time for further research and potential refutation by experts outside of think tanks to properly weigh in on what the primary sources are saying." - User:Iryna Harpy Please do not summarize the stituation out of context. It was two editors against me, not a sound concensus. *"When a user continuously claims ignorance of why a certain fact is fringe is not cannot be considered good faith by my standards." The certain fact was that specific Russian equipment that was never known to have been operated within Ukraine was in seperatist hands. This qualifies as an exceptional claim because: (a) The shipment of the Pantsir-S1 is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field with many of the sources "supporting" its existence mentioning that it was unconfirmable. (b) Virtually no Western media reports convered this story and the Pantsir-S1s phantom state in the Ukraine was left unconfirmed. In fact, the most reliable source available in the field of military (Jane's International) explicitly stated that they could not confirm it themselves. (c) There was also no word from NATO about the Pantsir-S1 inside Ukraine. Mind you, NATO has confirmed Russian tanks and troops in Ukraine. *"Ultimately, his main objection (as he stated above) was that the content in question was an "extreme" or "fringe" viewpoint that strictly required an exceptional amount of reliable sources." I substained it fully in my first post of the talk page here. I left no stoned unturned and I addressed every single source as it was. *"He was never unable to substantiate that claim at all and it appears to be totally baseless—I'm not sure how anyone can read WP:FRINGE and think that it applies to this content." I've summarized it beforehand and I'd appreciate it if someone actually took time to look into my inquiry rather than lambast me for not being capable of doing something I already did months beforehand and my opposition continuously reintroduces the same points. It was an exceptional claim because Ukraine did not operate the Pantsir-S1 and for it to appear in seperatist hands would require exceptionally reliable sources to confirm that they (a) are present in Ukraine and (b) have been sent to Ukraine via borders. So for only one of these points have been attempted to be proven. Not a single mention is given of how the Pantsir-S1s were sent to Ukraine. There was clear evidence for the T-72B3s, but none were 100% decisive for the Pantsir-S1. *"This is either an indication of bad faith misrepresentation of policy, or evidence of a strong bias that has reached the point of disruption. Whichever it is, a longer disruptive editing block is warranted over the standard edit warring block." It can also be an actual fringe theory that was completely ignored. I've put forth my fullest effort to enforce Wikipedia's policies and I apologize if you actually saw it as a bad faith edit war or a strong bias. You inquiries are most welcomed. Thank you, all. Khazar (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As noted in Swarm's report, WP:FRINGE does not apply to the type of content in question; you need to drop the stick and move on if you want to avoid future blocks. Your next block will be for a much longer period if you can't learn to edit collaboratively with other editors here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

• If my above explanation was not sufficient for you, see my additional explanation at your WP:AN3 report, both of which extensively rationalize the one week block for disruptive editing. Furthermore, while it's not of the utmost relevance, yes, baseless accusations of bad faith contravene both WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Regards, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to hear from another administrator as well. My points stand and I would appreciate a review for my appeal. Khazar (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Although I am not an admin, I completely recognize your behavior as depicted above from another article, and agree that you must be made to understand that your unwillingness to "get the point" is tiring for other editors, and at a certain point becomes detrimental. Even here and now you continue to push your opinion. In view of the long-time and repeated behavior, and the fact that even up to this moment you don't get the point, I support the measure implemented, including its length. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In Al Khazar's defence, could I please draw everyone's attention to the fact that the Bellingcat issue has been a bone of contention on multiple articles, and is still being hotly disputed at the RSN. While there has been an awkward consensus on using it for some articles surrounding events in Ukraine (i.e., RS have reported on Bellingcat's findings, therefore it is appropriate to use specifically with INTEXT attribution), it remains problematic for high profile claims per NOTNEWS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh well. What can I do at this point? We all have to move on and let it go. At least this ban resparked my interest in constructively editting Wikipedia. Khazar (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)