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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.116.175.123 ( talk) 22:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

BTW, you and "RevelovingPersonalityConduct" are not the same person right?

If you are, then you are a sock !!

I invite you to take part on the talk pages. Rather than reverting aimlessly, engage in discussion with the editors. Kind regards, Khazar ( talk) 22:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Also, please be civil when accusing otehrs of sock puppetry, this is my only account. Khazar ( talk) 22:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

-- 199.116.175.123 ( talk) 22:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

What is the point of the talk page? I have added reliable sources while your claims are nothing but personal blogs and forums. You are just a Russian whom can not stand the fact that Type-99 is a Chinese design and will do anything to make it look like a russian copy !!! Just like you did to the WZ-10 page !!!

BTW, I have reported you to admin for disruptive editing, removal of sourced content !

-- 162.74.52.147 ( talk) 22:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello. I recommend that you also engage in the page discussion please. The Type 99 is a T-72 variant according to expert Carlo Kopp. Khazar ( talk) 22:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

		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) reply

		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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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").

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

• 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) reply

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) 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).

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) reply

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) 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.

• 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Al_Khazar reported by User:Whakaoriori (Result: ). Thank you. Whakaoriori ( talk) 23:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the notice, I will discuss it there. Khazar ( talk) 23:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.   Drmies ( talk) 23:36, 10 August 2015 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that the reason for my block is because of the 3RR. However, I was as civil as I could possibly be by starting the discussion and addressing his points. I welcomed the user, and warned him as well when he continued to edit war. Something I should also add is that there is a WP:3RR exemption when edit warring against a sock puppet. There are two IP addresses: User talk:199.116.175.123 & User talk:162.74.52.147. Judging by their editing behaviours, they appeared to be the same user. They both made the exact same changes on the Type 99 tank. One appeared right after the other on my talk page and I decided to make no accusations of sock puppetry to avoid bad faith. I welcome any administrator to review my appeal, but I would greatly appreciate it if User:Drmies does so instead. Kind regards, Khazar ( talk) 00:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

That's not how that exemption works; the other IP was not blocked at the time of your edit warring (evading a block). Kuru (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2015 (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 accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Since I am completely wrong for violating the 3RR, I am hoping to be unblocked and I will stay away from the pages of discussion for 1 week. I will not edit the Type 99 tank article and I already requested protection for it when the IP address appeared. I will no longer revert other users regardless of whether they are IP sock or not. At this point, I need to request a sock puppet investigation before this gets out of hand. Kind regards, Khazar ( talk) 00:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Accept reason:

Unblocked by the original blocker. Max Semenik ( talk) 05:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I was in the midst of reporting the IP address. I cannot get it through now.

• It doesn't matter anymore, but I went ahead and closed it formally. Drmies ( talk) 00:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Page: Type 99 tank ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 162.74.52.147 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Original

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:46 Aug 10
2. 15:52 Aug 10
3. 16:01 Aug 10
4. 16:07 Aug 10
5. 16:11 Aug 10
6. 16:11 Aug 10
7. 16:15 Aug 10
8. 16:17 Aug 10
9. 16:21 Aug 10

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:162.74.52.147 I'm the only user who's commented on the his/her talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff 1 diff 2

Comments: This IP address appeared for the first time on my talk page in this edit. It seems strange that he appeared simultaneously with this IP address. They may be the same, but I don't want to assume bad faith.

Khazar ( talk) 23:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Both users were obviously edit warring, even past the bright line of 3R--Khazar is at 7, I believe. The content dispute was handled inappropriately, one might say. The IP is blocked for 48 hours; Khazar, who's been blocked for disruption and edit warring before, is blocked for a week--a rather mild penalty, one might say. Drmies ( talk) 00:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I've requested a block appeal and I would appreciate a fair review. I believe that the IPs are indeed the same and could be sock puppets of each other. Kind regards, Khazar ( talk) 00:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Sorry Khazar, the report is closed. You have to understand that edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. There are no BLP exemptions, no exemptions for vandalism reverts in this article. But maybe another admin will see this differently. Drmies ( talk) 00:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Even when being as civil as possible? I already mentioned sock puppetry in effect and that would qualify as an exception to the WP:3RR rule. Khazar ( talk) 00:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

This is taken from WP:3RR:

The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR:

1. Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.

Khazar ( talk) 00:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

And whose sock is that IP? Max Semenik ( talk) 00:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

There was an incident about it here. He also harrassed RovingConstructor Personality here. I believe that it is the work of the same user who has been edit warring on the CAIC Z-10 article for over a year. The user is Shulinjiang and this was the investigation. One of his primary accounts was User talk:Tamlinwah who was blocked for 2 weeks. Kind regards, Khazar ( talk) 00:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I should also add that I've been vandalized by anti-Semitic comments by this user's sock puppets and would appreciate it if the administrators reconsider my block. Kind regards, Khazar ( talk) 00:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hmmm. That's actually a lot more interesting. One sec. Kuru (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Take your time to review it. If I'm unblocked, I will still keep my promise of staying away from the Type 99 tank article for 1 full week. Kind regards, Khazar ( talk) 00:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Kuru, I'm interested to see what you come up with. I actually looked at that ANI report the other day. Al Khazar, if you thought you were reverting edits by a blocked/banned/socking user, why didn't you say so in your edit summaries? (Also, IP hopping is not the same as socking.) Drmies ( talk) 01:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Concur, no amount of IP hopping is socking unless there's am active block in place on one of the previous IPs or a previous blocked account. I see a real dick of a troll that hops around on Blue Coat webhosts, AT&T proxies, and geolocates sometimes to Ohio. This fits both of those IPs used and would make the master likely Shulinjiang ( talk · contribs). There's enough there that I'd lean towards unblocking so he can lay it out at the SPI. @ Drmies:, would you object to some leash? Kuru (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• No problem, Kuru. But there are two conditions, Khazar. First, you must be more clear in your edit summary. If you're going to claim "I was reverting a sock", you can't do so afterwards. Second, if you can't make that claim (and if you can't you shouldn't), stop at 3, or don't start it at all: take it up with an administrator, for instance. You do NOT want to get in this kind of trouble, and we don't want it either. OK? Kuru, you can go ahead with the unblock, though I'd prefer to hear from Khazar first. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 01:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Will wait for the third party to agree to terms, as noted. Kuru (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I've been following this through the WP:RFPP request and think that an unblock is reasonable to allow for an SPI investigation. Staying away from the article in question for a week sounds like a plan, if even only for a chance to take a break from the whole ordeal, so I strongly recommend it. I'm not going ahead with the unblock – just offering another opinion. Airplaneman ✈ 02:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

As far as I'm concerned Khazar doesn't need to stay away from the article, if their hunch was right. If the SPI turns out to provide decent technical and behavioral evidence, the IP edits are easily reversed and life can go on. Drmies ( talk) 02:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for reconsidering my request. @ Drmies:, I fully understand all of the advice you've presented to me and I will obey the WP:3RR at all times while providing an edit summary regardless of whether I believe I'm reverting a sock or believe that I'm right. I'm still going to stay away from the Type 99 tank article for a full week to avoid any more trouble. The main reason that I was quiet at first about the IP addresses being possible sock puppets was because I didn't want to assume bad faith. I will avoid edit wars and keep my nose clean from now on. As for the IP addresses, I will report them within the next 24 hrs in the SPI of user Shulinjiang. Kind regards, Khazar ( talk) 03:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• It's done. Let's see if some decent ideas can come out of the SPI. Thank you Al Khazar--and thank you Kuru and Airplaneman. Drmies ( talk) 04:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I've submitted all the evidence that is needed here. I've left out redundant examples to make it brief. Kind regards, Khazar ( talk) 00:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=S-400_(missile)&oldid=677960270 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.104.200.83 ( talk) 15:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

It must have been a pain in the azz to keep removing Algeria every few days from the S-400 system operators lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasteland1 ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Dear Al Khazar,

I have just noticed that you deleted wholesale all the material I added to the article on the history of the Russian Jews eight days ago. My additions involved considerable work, and the material was carefully sourced and I believe useful and accurate. Could you please explain why you deleted it?

Yours sincerely, Pdruknl

Pdruknl (
talk) 15:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
reply

He keeps deleting actual sources as "government mouthpieces" or propaganda/tabloid pieces, but then posts some of the most unreliable garbage sources that have zero qualification to speak on the issues I've ever seen as "reliable" ones.

You literally have zero idea what the hell you're talking about, and it's funny you call yourself so against vandals when that's exactly what you're doing right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.140.161 ( talk) 11:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Please remain civil and address the issues at hand on the article's talk pages rather than on mine. Kind regards, Khazar ( talk) 21:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Strike that. I've noticed that there are few IP addresses with the exact same style of editing and points. One of these IP addresses was banned for a month for being linked to Shulinjiang. Therefore, I've deleted all the comments made by these IP addresses. Khazar ( talk) 22:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Need your input in the discussion here Talk:INS_Vishal#Dispute:_Contradiction_to_neutral_point_of_view standardengineer ( talk) 14:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply