User talk:Chutznik

[For prior discussions, please see the page history.]

Warning

 * This is your only warning. Your last three edits, which succeeded a gap of about three months, are disruptive and blatant trolling. One more and I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You should know better than to call archiving of my talk page trolling. And it is fun to ban users who misbehave, and it is a concern that a user first came to Wikipedia in 2009. But I'm not asking for a block, and I will disappear into thin air once again. I have better things to do than to fight for my freedom to edit. Chutznik (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Chutznik: The logic behind your statement at RfA was deeply flawed. There are any number of reasons why someone might not have edited Wikipedia before a certain date, from having been born relatively late to having an offline life! Jumping to the conclusion that anyone who registered an account after a certain point is likely to be a sock of a previously banned user is a serious violation of WP:AGF, and serious accusations require evidence - even at RfA. I know you're not asking for a block. The point is that unless you stop being flat-out nasty to people (as you also were at Pjoef's RfA, your edits are calling for one. I see you were unblocked this February in response to a promise to behave. Please do so and take the anger and assumptions as to others' motives (I see you stating elsewhere besides above that we consider it "fun" to block people) elsewhere. They are inappropriate on a collaborative project. Find something more constructive to do here, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Chutznik, I've closed the discussion you started at the RfA talk page. The only reason I'm not blocking you for your continued trolling is because it would appear that Yngvadottir believes you should have another chance. Again, don't persist in your unconstructive behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There's another reason why blocking would have no purpose. I hardly edit here anyway. I would appeal a block on principle because I have done nothing wrong, but what's the difference? If you think I've done something wrong, what can I say? Somebody is wrong on the internet... Chutznik (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for trolling and using edit summaries for vandalism and libel. 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:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * is closed. Courtesy ping to the eternal one. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * needs to request unblocking via original account.
 * inelligible for unblocking at this time
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Shalom Yechiel-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Any request must be to the ArbCom
 * -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm noting here that an appeal can now be made through the regular avenues, outside of Arbcom. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Noting that I've restored talkpage access for an appeal in an attempt to simplify some bureaucratic complications (original account has talkpage access but password is lost, this account had a password but no talkpage access, so together UTRS requests went nowhere). Administrators: please note 89858. Maxim (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mahane Israel (disambiguation)


The article Mahane Israel (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Per WP:2DABS"

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)