User talk:FreddyNietzche

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 15:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our sourcing policy[edit]

is described at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. It would be a good idea to read these before you add sources. And sources must be used for any material likely to be challenged. See also WP:NOR. Sources are usually not need in the WP:LEAD which is meant to be a summary of the article (and thus not a place for new material). That aside, we are a mainstream encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at David Irving, you may be blocked from editing. and violating WP:NPOV Doug Weller talk 16:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of lying[edit]

You wrote "Although the court ruled against Irving it did not state that he was a 'racist' and 'anti-semite' this is a lie and has been removed." The High Court Judge explicitly stated that "he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism." He also wrote "Irving is anti-Semitic. His words are directed against Jews, either individually or collectively, in the sense that they are by turn hostile, critical, offensive and derisory in their references to Semitic people, their characteristics and appearances ... Irving has made claims that the Jews deserve to be disliked; that they brought the Holocaust on themselves. He speaks regularly at political or quasi-political meetings in Germany, the United States, Canada and the New World. The content of his speeches and interviews often displays a distinctly pro-Nazi and anti-Jewish bias."

I don't see the lie. I see an editor ignoring what the sources say and trying to force in their own pov.

Doug Weller talk 16:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Projection thy name is Doug Weller.

Please don't insert your posts between mine and my signature, and sign with 4 tildes, eg ~~~~ I note you didn't respond to my statement about your edit and edit summary. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were right and I was wrong regarding the statement made by the judge. With regards to trying to "force" my own pov however, you are wrong and you seem to have been able to make this accusation after I have made only a handful over minor edits.

February 2016[edit]

Your recent editing history at Jürgen Graf 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. Doug Weller talk 16:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FreddyNietzche reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: ). Thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 17:59, 23 February 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

The definition of occupation=a person's usual or principal work or business, especially as a means of earning a living; vocation: Jurgen Graf is a translator living in Russia, it says this on his Wiki page. Not only is "holocaust denier" not an occupation as it is not a way to make a living, it is specifically not Jurgens occupation and it says so on his Wiki page. Furthermore, the use of the word "denier" is unique in that it is used to replace "revisionist" in order to influence the reader into having a negative opinion of the revisionist. It is also unique in that the word "denier" is not attached to any other type of revisionism, it is used exclusively for the Holocaust and is therefore being used for political and ideological means. If Wikipedia wishes to be neutral, it must not allow the use of this label to continue, especially in cases where its use is absolutely incorrect, such as Graf's occupation.FreddyNietzche (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have examined every one of your edits, and I see a very singular agenda here which appears to be aimed at whitewashing Holocaust denial. That might be acceptable in some circles, but it is not acceptable here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2016 (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.

Response What an appalling response. Rather than contest the particular edits which have been made using logic and common sense, as I have demonstrated, you have instead decided to "whitewash" these edits as some kind of "Holocaust denial" agenda which is absolutely ridiculous as I have not made ONE SINGLE edit reference the holocaust itself. Nor have I offered any refutation of the holocaust. I have simply changed the label of "Holocaust denier", a ridiculous ad hominem which dissuades inquiry and free speech, to "holocaust revisionist" a more accurate and honest label. You offer not response to these points, nor have you, or anyone else for that matter, been able to demonstrate how "holocaust denier" can be ones occupation. I made another edit which changed "Scholars" to "Some scholars" on the second paragraph of the 'Holocaust denial' page. This changed the sentence to a more neutral and accurate statement as not ALL scholars can be said to concur with that sentence. It has since been changed back to its original state. It seems other people here have an agenda also, and their agenda is being coddled to by the community. HYPOCRITES.FreddyNietzche (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC) |[reply]

Note from the blocking admin: I didn't just look at the user's edits to Jürgen Graf, as per the WP:AN3 report, but assessed the entirety of their contributions. It appears that they're here to push a particular agenda over many articles. I don't know if you wish to revise your unblock request in view of this, mr Nietzche. Bishonen | talk 18:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

ResponseIndeed I do wish to have the block revised. The only "agenda" I have is to make Wikipedia more balanced and neutral which is in fact part of their mission. With regards to the edit of several articles, I have edited very few and they have been minor edits in order to make the articles more balanced and neutral, as in the case of Jurgen Graf. My reason for editing the Jurgen Graf article is very clear and logically sound. It should stick that "holocaust denier" is not listed as his occupation as this is not an accurate reflection of reality and it even contradicts the Wikipedia article which states he is working as a translator. Even people wish to make it clear that Graf is a "holocaust denier" they should insert into the article. It does not belong under occupation. I, admittedly made one error in my edits with regards to Irving which as been addressed, all other edits, and there are few of them, have been an accurate reflection of reality and portray a fairer and more balanced picture. User:FreddyNietzche