User talk:Bleckter

Le hablo en español porque saque datos de su IP y es de México. Amigo, usted si es tonto verdad, revise las fuentes sobre Costa Rica y Argentina y no se que le pasa a su cerebro que mezclo datos de GENETICA con RAZA, el 45% de costarricenses con genética pura europea no significa que solo ese porcentaje de los ticos sean blancos, de hecho igual que Argentina los dos poseen mas del 80% de blancos, ahora, si usted desea poner solo el porcentaje de blancos puros (que es hasta cierto punto indeterminable, ya que esos porcentajes tiene margenes de error y solo cuentan a un mínimo de la población), la verdad, entonces su país donde son un 15% habría que reducirlo a un 3% o 2%, los mismo pasa en Chile, el 52% dicen las fuentes que son blancos, pero puros son el 15% o menos, ahora con Argentina, obvio que el 44% son de genética pura europea, pero el 85% son blancos, ya que muchos argentinos, ticos, y chilenos (los Uruguayos si son homogenenos), son parte de una mezcla llamada anteriormente "castizo" (Europeo con Mestizo), si, son una mezcla, pero por sus genes predominantemente europeos así como sus facciones raciales, ya forman parte de la raza blanca, lo mismo sucediera si un mestizo se casa con una indígena (Cholos), el hijo volvería a ser parte de los indígenas, aunque no tan puro pero si su sangre es predominantemente indígena, o tambien si un mestizo se casa con una negra (su denominación la desconozco), el hijo o hija sería tomada en cuenta como parte de la raza negra, entendió?, o se lo explico con manzanitas?. Para finalizar, cuando le dije cayese la boca, no era necesariamente un insulto, era para que me dejara de amenazar con sus bloqueos (ademas usted no es un admin para poder bloquear). Saludos!!

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. --Chueco23456 (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

White latin americans

you are kidding me rigth? i say the reasons and YOU undo it, why dont you read the talk section? you clearly have something against argentines, and you dont justify your edits in the talk or answer the complains that other user put in your talk, and you are telling to stop, you put three references about the same study that is nothing, 3 lines of text and apparently you dont even read those lines Chueco23456 (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you dont care about anything just do whatever you want, destroy the wikpedia Chueco23456 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to not using the talk for discussion and editing articles to adapt them to your point of view, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. --Chueco23456 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whites argentines, in costa rica, etc

you obviusly have a problem with those countries, especially with argentina, and whites latin americans, you should stop screwing up those articles. Having 1 indian great grand parent does not make you mestizo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chueco23456 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

genetic data is not ethnic data, and tou should read the talk section before editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chueco23456 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Make use of the Talk page to prevent edit warrning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Article in Question: [1]

It was already suggested by another user recently that the article contained excess vagueness due to the conflation of genetic and census data, the edits you're suggesting for the lede only increase such vagueness. Discuss the edits on the the article talk page first before making them.

Alon12 (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Please check Las preposiciones son importantes per Spanish local checkuser resolution. Thanks. --Taichi (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Comentario

Hola, si me acabo de dar cuenta y le pido disculpas, vine aquí desde 2010 porque observe que se le daba profundidad a la raza blanca en otros países y en el mío se ignoraba el tema habiendo documentos validos que si prueban que hubo inmigración europea en mi país, eso no quiere decir que sea racista, me siento bien vivir en un país multietnico, pero ese es otro tema, me encantaría iniciar de nuevo pero dudo seguir editando en un futuro, y tambien como que algunos me quieren lejos de aquí jaja, muchos saludos--190.148.65.91 (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at White Latin Americans. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{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. Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard but the best strategy is not fall in three-revert rule and always ask a sysop about the problem. Don't give up, good luck. --Taichi (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Thanks

If its possible send a checkuser petition or a steward petition in Meta (some stewards knows the case). I can't lock globally any sockpuppet. --Taichi (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bleckter. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Hello Drmies. I'm not Bleckter23. He is a sockpuppet that I reported years ago. He took advantage of my inactivity to pretend to be me. The notifications alerted me. Greetings. Bleckter (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

See below. Drmies (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bleckter: explain please. The diff shows you reporting User:Linda fletcher. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. Bleckter, accept my (our) apologies; we believed Bleckter23 who of course turned out to be a sock. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 06:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mensaje

Que bueno que regresas por acá, ya te echaba de menos :(, porque en vez de decirle a Taichi que soy un inútil me lo dices a mi, te lo digo de manera tranquila: acá de haces el buenito pero quieres manipular a otros en contra mía porque sos un maquiavelico sin agallas de mostrarlo y hacer toda la wikipedia a tu gusto, y tu propósito (o el que conozco) es aumentar la raza blanca en México y disminuir la argentina y costarricense, aunque pongas en todas las wikipedias que mexico tiene 40% de blancos, todo el mundo sabe ustedes son indios. Porque no me dice de una vez que es lo que busca y todo lo que piense de mi (aunque sean insultos, me han dicho de todo), y como piensa sacarme de wikipedia, usted ya lo tiene todo planeado, estoy seguro (acá jjerez88@yahoo.com). Era obvio que esto pasaría hoy es un mal día para mi signo capricornio, ademas ya sabia que usted se aparecería porque le conviene, nunca sabrá porque hice todo lo que he hecho ni nadie :). --186.151.61.140 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

I hope this helps. Again, sorry for the block--but it did serve a purpose in bringing that socker to our attention. Cheers. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bleckter. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]