User talk:Jazz1972 - Wikipedia


1 person in discussion

Article Images

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).

Jazz1972 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am blocked as I see for a nationalist POV-warring against consensus and a nationalist campaign against consensus.

Very strange to be blocked for nationalism, for stating that EOKA was not a nationalist organization. What type of a nationalist wouldn't want the most popualr ever organization among Cypriots, to be of his own ideology.?

Lysarides and his men were socialists and Tasos Papadopoulos who was in charge of Nicosia sector was centre. All of them were EOKA and EOKA was popular among almost all Greek Cypriots. 3 to 4 traditional Cypriot parties were led by EOKA members. Centre, centre-right and centre-left. So the ideology of EOKA was enosis and self-determination onlyJazz1972 (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC) This was accused as POV by Cinadon and then when I answered I got reported and blocked. Very strange don't you think?

Second, is there is any rule that says that someone can be blocked for a month, because some admin, thinks that he is ideological somewhere? He blocked me again for no sufficient reason.

Third how is me that is blocked only here, while the one accuses me, and is hundreds of times more biased to the one side than anyone else, is not blocked? The one that is vandalizing all NPOV information that is.

Fourth. What measures can I take against proven biased admins, that will have any chance to work here?Jazz1972 (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2019 (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.

You were blocked for your own behavior, not that of others, or for your political views. You need to address the reasons for the block, and only that, in your unblock request. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2019 (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).

Jazz1972 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can any adminn here provide any edit that I have made in any article, that it was worst than the one that either existed before me, or came after me.? Since you are accusing me for damage and disruption and blocked me for a month, you will certainly, have to be able to provide such examples. In addition saying something for what it is, it is not a personal attack, it is the truth. If something incites hatred against the one site and a victimhood culture to the other and I say it, it is not a personal attack, it is describing reality in an accurate manner. How does this qualify as a personal attack, especially when something is like that on a 100% level? It is you, the accuser and the admin that blocked me that you are attacking me personally, with no evidence to support it. Can any admin here explain, how my edits were damaging and disruptive, in comparison either with the accusers, or the ones that were existing before me, or came after me? The accuser has not being banned, I remind you and the same admin blocked me again, with no sufficient reasonJazz1972 (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

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.

Renewed edit-warring on the same subject isn't acceptable. I've blocked you for a month, and the next block is likely to be indefinite if this happens again. Acroterion (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jazz1972. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)Reply