User talk:Batka83

April 2014

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Mongoloid with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Mongoloid idiot has been reverted, as it removed all content from the page without explanation. Please do not do this, as it is considered vandalism; instead, use the sandbox for testing. If you think the page should be deleted, see here for what to do. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mongoloid, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Mongoloid was changed by Batka83 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.877762 on 2014-04-22T09:33:15+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Mongoloid. DVdm (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - please stop removing that content from Mongoloid idiot. The article redirects to the place where it is explained that the historic term is no longer in use and why. Also stop stop re-inserting that unsourced phrase to Mongoloid. It is already explained—and properly sourced—in the lead of that article that the term is derogatory since even long before 1996. If you have specific concerns, then you must go to the article talk pages of these articles. - DVdm (talk) 10:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will report you as Vandalism if you change the page. Because I explained to you many times that word "Mongoloid" had been stopped meaning as Down syndrome since 1996 years. You are outraging whole country!

I epxlained many times that indeed it has stopped meaning Down syndrome since even long before 1996. That is exactly what is explained in the articles. Have you read the articles? By the way, I already have reported you for adding unsourced content after your final warning. - DVdm (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect at Mongoloid idiot

I removed your WP:PROD tag. If you read the instructions, you'll see that redirects may not be PRODed. Instead, you need to go to WP:RFD. Please make sure to read the instructions there first, though. Paradoctor (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2014 (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).

Batka83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Here is the confirmation word mongoloid had been stopped meaning as Down syndrome. http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/67258/mongoloid-with-reference-to-downs-syndrome. What if I call some kinds of pain Engloid or Americoid? It's the same situation.Please unblock me. I just wanted to correct false information

Decline reason:

As noted in message above, you've been blocked for edit warring. You'll need to address that before an unblock can be considered. Kuru (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2014 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Batka83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Here is the confirmation word mongoloid had been stopped meaning as Down syndrome. http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/67258/mongoloid-with-reference-to-downs-syndrome. What if I call some kinds of pain Engloid or Americoid? It's the same situation.Please unblock me. I just wanted to correct false information Batka83 (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This exact appeal has already been declined - twice, actually. Please address the edit warring as noted above. —DoRD (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2014 (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.

Redirects for discussion

Hi Batka83. Just letting you know I've corrected a couple of errors at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 24, where you nominated Mongoloid idiot for discussion. You'd linked to Mongoloid Idiot, which as you can see is a red link, which might've led people to believe the redirect had already been deleted. This is because page titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive – despite containing the same letters the two titles are actually completely different pages because of the different capitalisation (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Software characteristics for more info on this). If you want to work on the deletion process in future you might want to use Twinkle, which is a really handy tool that makes nominating articles, redirects, etc. for deletion much easier and prevents mistakes like that from being made. To enable it, just tick the box at the "Gadgets" section of your preferences page. Hope that helps. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mongoloid idiot RfD

Hi Batka, I noticed that the only two users so far to support your call for deletion of the Mongoloid idiot redirect are new users. At the time I write this, one of them has one edit outside of that discussion, and the other has none. While it's certainly possible that this is some sort of strange coincidence, I thought you should be aware of our policies on sock puppetry and meat puppetry. If you are recruiting friends or establishing secondary accounts to support your position, you could face further blocks. These votes may also be devalued or discounted altogether. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —DoRD (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2014 (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).

Batka83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Oh come on! How did you know that I'm using several accounts? You should prove that first. Also 1 week is so long time. Why our friends can't also vote? Because they are Mongols, I'm Mongol. I will not stop until Mongoloid Idiot will be deleted. I'm proud of my country. Anyone hasn't got any rights to say Mongoloid IDIOT, ok?

Decline reason:

How did we know? Well, after you made this edit, you then in quick succession created User:Jumbara and then User:Otemd. You might want to read WP:CheckUser to see how we know. Considering that you did what you did -- creating multiple accounts to feign WP:CONSENSUS -- you're lucky you're not blocked indefinitely. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:23, 25 April 2014 (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.

Just an FYI, because you clearly used another sock to evade this block, I've extended it to a month. -- Atama頭 13:31, 30 April 2014 (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).

Batka83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hey Atama, keep calm. I didn't use any other account. Why other people couldn't write on discussion? You are not skilled administrator. Batka83 (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not only did you obviously use another account, you used it to blank the discussion, which is vandalism. (Also, as a note, the original block? Checkuser proved you were usuing several accounts.) Wikipedia is not censored. If you attempt to disrupt a discussion again, using a sock or otherwise, the next block will be indef. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:52, 1 May 2014 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Batka83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm telling you. It's not me. You should double check. If my account had blocked again I will create another account with another name. pfff. I'm scared too much LOL Batka83 (talk) 5:08 am, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

I think we're done here. Threats to continue socking, combined with a perpetual failure to get the point, suggest that you aren't going to be a net positive here. Talkpage access revoked for remainder of block, to prevent any more timewasting. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:23, 1 May 2014 (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.

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Batka83. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]