|
Airplaneman ✈ 23:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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:
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)
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)
![]() | 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) |
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)
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.
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)
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)
|
Airplaneman ✈ 23:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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:
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)
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)
![]() | 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) |
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)
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.
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)
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)