User talk:Me ne frego

Welcome to Wikipedia!

W e l c o m e

Hello, Me ne frego! Thank you for your contributions. My name's Airplaneman and I just wanted to say hi and Welcome to Wikipedia!

You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of the world's largest encyclopædia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name, the date and the time. You'll soon learn to appreciate people using helpful edit summaries, so please contribute by filling in that box (just above Save Page) every time you edit.

If you are already loving Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. (There's a comprehensive Directory of WikiProjects, and you'll find many article talk pages have banners from a relevant project.) Again, welcome, and happy editing!

Some useful links to learn more about Wikipedia:

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Airplaneman ✈ 23:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Bantu peoples with this edit, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Uyghur people. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Uyghur people. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean climate

I'm not going to get into a 3RR-within-24-hours war with you on Mediterranean climate. However, merely placing a section back in as a placeholder, as far as I can tell, is not sanctioned by wikipedia on any of its guidance pages, especially if that section can be construed to be a gallery. If I'm wrong here, post the wikilink on my talk page. My advice would be to place it as an extension of your userpage, if you need them for some reason. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need them, but I think it would be good to have some climate charts in the article to illustrate how it looks like, The problem is, that there is no place for them in the article because of the maps I added, so I placed the them in the Gallery.--Me ne frego (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add two or three city tables back in, I'd be okay with that but only if you were able to find references which stated those locations were within the Mediterranean climate regime. That way, when more information is included, and we have room for them in the article, we can place them back onto the margins of the article as is preferred within any book or encyclopedia. If we're ever going to improve the climate articles, inline referencing is needed for all paragraphs and cities/locations included within the various climate regimes. Otherwise, the information can not, and should not, be there. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need references, you only have to check if it meets all criteria of Köppen climate classification for the given type of climate.--Me ne frego (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is wikipedia. It is best to have inline references to avoid aspersions from others of original research, another wikipedia no-no. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There can be no dispute. The rules are firmly given. Besides, the cities were chosen as model examples.--Me ne frego (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Giornorosso (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello. First of all, I would like to say that my goal is to actively contribute to wikipedia, not to vandalize it. As User:Giornorosso I was blocked unjustly, just because of my opinions from initiative of Delicious carbuncle. He is after me, he hates me because of my opinions. I don't deny that I am racist, but that is not forbidden and I think that diversity of opinions is what makes Wikipedia Wikipedia. Of course that I maintain NPOV, but some users simply want to ban me for my opinions. I can prove my innocence. Below are listed the reasons for my block as Giornorosso:

1.I inserted sentence "Race is a very significant factor in determining offenders. Most of gang rape offenders in the UK are black" with source, and I don't know what is wrong about that I cited "one news story" according to user WLU. I didnt break the rule of three reverts.

2.This insertion into the article "Criminal black man stereotype" was unsourced, but factually correct.

3.In the article about Frances Cress Welsing, i wrote that she was black supremacist, and that it absolutely correct. You can google her opinions.

4.I added the portrait of Barack Obama to the article "Mulatto" because he is indeed mulatto. As I read the article, it seems that it "has fallen out of favor", but it is still used here and I don't know about your stupid taboos.

5.[My edit] to race and crime was also factually correct, and also unsourced. "Similarly, while black people make up only 2 percent of the Canadian population etc." I later added the link, but in was removed anyway. As I am looking at the article now, it it completely changed and most of the useful informations are gone. Interesting.

6.I admit that I inserted the word "nigger" here, but that was just "momentary aberration". I also admit that I wrote "long live Gaddafi" to an updated file on commons, but I don't see an serious problem in that. Not that I should be banned for it.

I want to point out that it is not neccessary at other wikipedias to source all information, so I didn't see any problem about it.

I also don't understand how can you block someone without warning, just out of the blue. On other wikipedias it can't work that way. I think that it is clear that Delicous Carbuncle tried to have me blocked completely from the very beginnning, and he tries to permanently blcok one of my IP adresses. All because I am racist.

Fainites says, that "There is a distinct theme to many of his edits relating to Roma, blacks, muslims and crime." This is the same thing as if I said "There is a distinct theme to many of his edits relating to rail transport, bus transport and technology. Therefore I suggest that this user should be blocked." You want to punish me that I am interested in crime rates of certain groups of people? This is severe reseriction of free speech. You seem to have quite distorted perception what free speech actually means. OK, this is a private server, but if it works that way in USA and elsewhere, then I really pity you.

To make it clear, I do only the same thing that millions of editors do: edit articles and insert information about whatever they care about, their hobbies, interests and so on.

Delicious Carbuncle deliberately provided distorted information in order to get me blocked. I was forced to create sockpuppets to be able to contribute to wikipedia, but but it wouldn't be necessary if certain user had not decided to trouble me only because of my views...

I repeat again that my intent is not to vandalize Wikpiedia, but to contribute. I as User:Me ne frego I created on commons this great map and many other derived climate maps.

I hope that I didn't waste my time and energy writing this and that you do something about my block or at least provide me full answer and explain me, according to what WP rules I was blocked, because this is incredible. Giornorosso (talk)

Decline reason:

You already know that the abuse of multiple accounts is not permitted, and that inappropriate sock accounts are blocked. By creating this account, you understood that it would be blocked. Most human beings would not add racist language, or create account names like User:Killtheniggur, even as an 'aberration.' I don't see anything in your long unblock request that indicates that unblocking this account, or any of your accounts, would be good for Wikipedia. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:19, 6 April 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hm I knew that I couldn't expect anything better than this. I created multiple accounts only because i was forced to do it by wrong decision of those who blocked my first account. You adressed none of my arguments. I already contributed wikipedia in climatology and other areas, unfortunately many editors are biased against me because of my views. Giornorosso (talk)

Decline reason:

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, aye? 狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille! 01:03, 6 April 2011 (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.

Unfortunately, by choosing to be a racist, you have chosen to be unacceptable at most volunteer positions, jobs, and social situations. I'm sure that this is not the first time that you've had to accept the consequences of that choice, and it probably won't be the last. The good news is that any human being is able to change bad ideas. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, I do not live in an unfree country. According to law, I cannot and be discriminated for my opinions. Giornorosso (talk)

Fisherqueen, how do his views on race factor into his blocking? I don't see how it is relevant, unless wikipedia has some unknown clause for these things. After seeing your user page, and that you're an admin, I'm astonished at your response, both as an admin and someone who is openly gay. What if someone decided to block you from wikipedia because of your views? Using personal views to somehow support his banning, without quoting the wikipedia infraction he commited while doing so? Come on! Be an admin and address his concerns properly, assuming good faith. Fox's retort is equally problematic Thegreatdr (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which country is that? Discrimination laws don't generally cover opinions, which are freely chosen. Anyone is welcome to choose to not hire a racist, or not marry one, or not invite one to parties, or not be friends with one. In fact, most people do make that choice. Had you really not noticed? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Czech republic. You can't be fired from a job just for your political views, that would be illegal here. In USA or in the UK you can be easily fired for a thought crime. Giornorosso (talk)

Thegreatdr, I'm assuming that you haven't read this user's contributions. You can't seriously be arguing for unblocking the user whose objectionable racist opinions led to a block, and who has been creating multiple accounts including User:Killtheniggur. By the way, being gay is not a 'view.' But you won't find me adding 'kill the breeder' to any articles, either. Racism isn't a political opinion, it's a character flaw, and encouraging racists to edit Wikipedia would tend to bring the encyclopedia into disrepute. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are banning him for that reason, say so, don't go into a diatribe about his views and saying things like "you should be used to this treatment by now" and that it's a "character flaw." That's equally inappropriate, and could be redirected back towards you in an instant by editors/admins on here. Don't set such a precedent. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that all racists who can be identified as racists by their edits should be immediately blocked simply for being racists. Their presence is objectionable, and no positive edits they could make will make up for the high cost to the encyclopedia of letting them participate- those costs include alienating decent human beings who try to edit, adding racist views to the encyclopedia, and exposing the whole project to ridicule and mistrust. If a time comes when that opinion reflects badly on me at Wikipedia, I will accept the consequences. --FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What you say is clear violation of all founding principles of Wikipedia.Giornorosso (talk)

I looked it up; the Czech Republic protects its citizens against discrimination based on sex, race and ethnicity, religion, disability (state of health), age and sexual orientation. No mention of opinions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms specifically mentions "political or other thinking" (politického či jiného smýšlení) Giornorosso (talk)

Actually the anti-discrimination law also forbids discrimination based on world view. So its kind of dual protection. Giornorosso (talk)

No matter what kind of negative things has been done by this editor, his treatment by Fisherqueen cannot be tolerated on wikipedia, per wikipedia standards. It's been reported to the admin board. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]