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

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'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).

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 The article has been virtually turned around since its GA listing was revoked, it is finally ready for independent GA review again I think :) Kaz 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC) Kaz 21:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nothing I'm seeing in the discussion below leads me to believe that you even understand why you were properly blocked, let alone that you will change your problematic approach -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2012 (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.

"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]

Again with all due respect, How does That get addressed then? Imagining for the moment that I "unleashed" a "battleground mentality" at Crimean Karaites, without any evidence 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?

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]

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 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

It is extremely easy to destroy a good article, but very difficult to build one especially when you are the only one of us who speaks English well enough to write an entire article 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. If they are unusual Jews who hate Christ, fine! But why silence Karaims who love Christ? If they want to be Jews for Jesus then also fine, but then they should just move along no? But certainly 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 before any off the cuff responses. Do WP:CRITERIA, WP:UCN, and WP:BOLD mean nothing any more? Best regards to you all. Kaz 22:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of this addresses your most pressing issue: getting unblocked. This isn't the place to post walls of text about article disputes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something confusing happened in an Edit Conflict. I have asked about "That" above.Kaz 22:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My integrity does not hinge on your approval, I hope. I note that your defense, again, is that you were right and they were wrong. You are pretending that this encyclopedic article is where some sort of ethnic and historical fight is taking place, with sides and experts and UNESCO backing you up, but that is not the case. Continuing this attitude means that you will never get unblocked, since it guarantees that your disruptive behavior will continue. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why so angry? Did I wrong you somehow? Is this personal for you? I simply asked for someone to look into this move request seriously and not off-the-cuff. What exactly did I do wrong? Was I WP:BOLD ? Yes I was. Did I use WP:CRITERIA? Yes I did. And WP:UCN? Yup! Did I take other opinions and knowledge from users into account? Indeed I did, about 20 of them. Did I take it to the Admin noticeboards? Yup, several times. Did I wait for Admins to do something about this? For more than a month! Did I seek DR? Yes, but it has been closed down. Arbitration? Ditto. Now if this is about My typing errors and my pigs-ear of trying to undo the mess. Does the fact that I tried to undo it several times over mean nothing?

On the other hand, if this is about personal attacks instead? Then I only gave as good as I got. But I also tried to deal with it discretely. So how long a block is normal for someone who apologises for a cuss? Or else, is it reasonable to block someone indefinitely for turning a bad article into a good one? Obviously I can just change my IP and get a new user name, WP blocks are pretty ineffective to be honest but with a 9 year clean history until I touched the Karaims article (and like I've never seen in all my 9 years here I see really bizarre reactions to my in this case adamant determination that there has to be logical neutrality and objectivity in this article like there are in so many others on WP. WP makes much mention of Good Faith. How come despite 9 years of good standing with WP as soon as I touch this article, assuming good faith in my behalf goes out of the window in favour of Straw man descriptions of me by literally a couple of really quite unsavoury characters?), I would prefer to do things honestly and openly by the book. I think it is best not to let Admin power get to one's head in cases like these, there is always someone higher to appeal to. Since I do not have any pride or ego to be hurt, I just want to know what honest steps I should now taken rather than doing things the way too many others seem to prefer. Kaz 23:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If I have been blocked for re-factoring, then look again, I have not done any of that since Beeblebrox did the definitive re-factor. If that is why I've been blocked then very simply, someone has made a mistake. In fact is is precisely because I thought someone might complain about the talk page being moved and because the Archive link did not work that I tried quite franticly to undo the move as my edit history shows. Kaz 00:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, Beeblebrox laid down the law on 14 September. Three edits of yours that are contrary to his edict after that edit are [8], [9], [10]. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps an admin could have pointed out to ome the details of the "edict" you are referring to? It is not as if I have not been asking for help and guidance. Are you familiar with accessibility laws governing websites in the UK and America? Reasonable adjustments do have to be made for people with disabilities like dyslexia or ADD for example where large blocks of text are difficult to deal with. Afteral, I copied that practice from admins over the years. No one ever complained about it until Warshy, and he did not report it to the Admin notice board. I am blocked because Toddy reported an ajudication to the Admin noticeboard. I don't quite know why the subject was changed. Kaz 06:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. Between my last edit (17:54, 2 October 2012‎) on the Karaite Judaism page and the 18:14, 2 October 2012‎ AnomieBOT edit if you look in the deletion log you will see a revert by Warshy and you will also see the name of the editor who deleted his revert. You must be aware of the license problems such deletions cause right? Kaz 01:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm only responding to this last point on this edit between 17:54 and 18:14, and only because I don't want you to assume that silence means consent (your comments simply don't address the reason for your block and thus can't be a basis for an unblock). Here's the thing: I don't know what you mean with "deletion log"--there are no log entries for that page since 2009. I also don't know what you mean with "deleted a revert". A revert can't be deleted, unless by that you mean rev-deleted, which is unlikely, and there are no relevant deleted contributions by Warshy. But I think I do know what you mean with your final question, which seems to attempt to cast doubt on our competence: if something is deleted by an admin it is deemed unfit to be part of the history of the article, and thus the licensing bit is moot. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boing is correct it was never really explained to me exactly what I did that resulted in the block. The Block was decided on the Admin notice board in response to my moving an article. But when I tried to explain the reasons, they were ignored and instead my use of the word "idiot" and "stalker" was brought up. I pointed out that no had brought this up except the Admin who noticed who I contacted to ask for them to be removed. Re-factoring talk pages was brought up, though in fact my own talk was re-factored much worse in the past than the three examples given, when I complained about it, the admins joined in the re-factoring. I also explained that it is not easy for someone with disabilities like mine to follow the conversations without breaking things up a little, but that was also ignored. Nevertheless I had asked for that Three times how to resolve this block and it was ignored. So why is no one reaching out to help here? If the police force was run by wiki admins would it be shoot first then make up the reasons later? You need to stick to the issue that I was "arrested" for, you need to gather evidence for the issue that the other party (Toddy1) wants to press a charge for (re-naming an article) you need to understand my reasons and see if the explanation is plausible. Then you need to sentence me (indefinite block) based upon whether or not I have a clean past (which I do) and whether my explanation is valid (I believe it is) if my explanation is not valid you need to explain why, so that I can be sure I will not make the same mistake again. So presuming my being blocked is because of "sabotage" as mentioned by User:Floquenbeam and everything else mentioned simply to suggest that I have a belligerent character, to make it look like my explanation was in-valid, I need to ask you one thing. Why would I have tried to revert everything several times over if I have a bad character and was trying to sabotage? Why would I start again trying to revert the talk page move when I realised that it had not been affected by my attempts? You need to explain my attempts to revert my own actions if I had bad intentions such as "sabotage" because I am a "disruptive" editor. Indefinite block (2 days maybe 20 years maybe forever) is disproportionate to someone who says "sorry" and "teach me". How is such action against me not taking sides? No need to answer that last rhetorical question. But please do answer my other question which for the fourth time is How do I resolve this?

I can make constructive comments providing sources for the discussion currently going on (without sources but simply taking Toddy1's word for it) at Talk:Crimean Karaites (if Karaim is a transliteration of the Karaim language word for Karaite, what does the Karaim language word Karay mean then? Also Karaite? If Karay is the Karaim language word, and Karaim is a Slavonic word, where in the world are other examples of the Slavic -M suffix? Why in Karaim language are there both Karaimlar (plural) and Karaylar (plural)? What is the difference? A little logical enquiry will reveal all the holes in their POV push. But if I am the one who is not NPOV (despite always including their suggestions into my re-write of the article) and if Toddy1 is not POV pushing, then why is Toddy1 trying to force his POV that Qale/Chuft-Kale (Chieftain Fortress) should be Chufut-Kale (where Chufut is a Krymchak word for Jew) meaning "Jewish fortress" as soon as I am not there to stop him? Look at his work on the Karaim language history and the Karaite Judaism#Russian Karaimi (Qaraylar)/Karaite Judaism#Crimean and Lithuanian Karaites page. Everywhere you turn you can find him and Warshy pushing the POV that Karaimlar and Karaylar are nothing but Jews who have been deceived by the "lies" of our leaders like Benjamin Aga, the Firkoviches, Sima Babovich and Seraya Shapshal (and in fact if pressed they will say we have been deceived by all our leaders except Isaac of Troki, even though he himself was a genuine convert to Judaism). At the end of the day, Karaite Jews have Israel, but we Karaimlar and Karaylar have nothing but our history. And yet I am the one accused of re-writing history? Our future is one of assimilation in the countries we now live, can't we at least preserve our own history on its own dedicated page through the eyes of our own people for posterity? Who does it harm? Kaz 08:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly unable to comprehend why you were blocked, even though it's been explained repeatedly and in great detail. Instead of *trying* to enhance your understanding, you respond with tenaciously self-righteous screeds, exonerating yourself from all possible wrongdoing. Wikipedia isn't 'anything-goes', and your block, like 99% of others, has NOTHING to do with suppression, censorship, or religious persecution. Wikipedia has rules. Several people are informing you that you've consistently failed to follow them - and what do you do? Blame them! Claim everyone else is wrong, and you're right! Persecution! Typical. Grow up, come back in a few years when you've learned how to appreciate constructive criticism. 149.135.146.66 (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

פנייתך בקשר לעליית קראי מזרח אירופה לארץ

אדון נכבד, שלום רב, מועצת החכמים, ו/או כל גוף אחר של היהדות הקראית העולמית (ע"ר), מעולם לא פעלו כדי למנוע עלייה לארץ של קראי מזרח אירופה.איננו מתנגדים לעליה כזאת, ואנו אף מעודדים אותה. אבקש לדעת את מקור השמועות, מי הפיץ אותן? היכן? ועל רקע איזה נסיבות?אודה על עזרתך על מנת למנוע הפצת דברי לא נכונים. בכבוד רב ובברכה,נריה הרואה

_______________________

עו"ד נריה בן ברוך הרואה

יו"ר המועצה העליונה

היהדות הקראית העולמית (ע"ר)

נייד: 050-6909535

פקס: 072-2319829

www.karaite.org.il

בתאריך 25 בנובמבר 2012 08:23, מאת היהדות הקראית העולמית (ע"ר) < jkaraite@gmail.com>: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.32.218 (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Qaraei has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kavar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Toddy1 (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, although it seems you may already be aware of this judging from your talk page, but I would like to inform you that your name is being used by Users whenever they try to remove facts and comments which are against their religious world view. We are accused of being You!! I would appreciate it if you could join in the discussions as something needs to be done about these people. Also I am not sure if you are aware of it or not, but you have been "Outed" by user Nepolkanov here https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8B_%D0%BA_%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC&diff=prev&oldid=66423362

You may or may not know that this is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Besyt of luck clearing your name sir! 79.109.203.252 (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. another discussion has been initiated concerning you here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Warshy#Request_for_help All the best 79.109.203.252 (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck in the elections. I hope that you are elected.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What elections? Kaz 05:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:AjaxSmack/Huá, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AjaxSmack/Huá and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:AjaxSmack/Huá during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Rex Deus.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]