User talk:Me ne frego

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Airplaneman  ✈  23:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; 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. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

April 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; 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)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Well
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)