User talk:Tertoger

Welcome!

Hello, Tertoger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

meco (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012[edit]

See WP:3RR; you're done on Johan Galtung for today. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. Earlier removals of BLP violations are excempt. Tertoger (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, take your chances. There is a clear consensus (everyone 'xcept you) on the talk page that it's not a BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a BLP violation and that's the consensus, already established at the Norwegian Wikipedia. Tertoger (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said -- take your chances. But here's the thing -- you're already at 3 even without those earlier edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you repeatedly make references to the Norwegian Wikipedia and decisions and actions made there. Please realize that the English Wikipedia is in no way bound by any decisions made by a sister project with regards to its content. __meco (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you are apparently permanently banned from the Norwegian Wikipedia, I can understand your antipathy to that project. When it comes to whether something concerning a Norwegian person, taking place in Norwegian, is defamatory, the actions of the Norwegian Wikipedia are highly relevant. This material being considered a BLP violation by the Norwegian Wikipedia is relevant to whether the exact same material is such a violation here. Tertoger (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for returning straight to edit warring as soon as your block expired and lodging a bad faith edit warring report. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may not remove block templates while you are blocked. If you do so again you will have your ability to edit this page revoked. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed your talk page access. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick removing a user's talk page access is not the way to solve a single thing. The editor is fairly new and inexperienced. You as an admin should know that by now. Blocking the user is one thing but making it impossible for him to engage in conversation is another thing all together. Open communication on Wikipedia is vital. He's new so he's inexperienced. The only way he can learn is through open communication and by you preventing him access to his own talk page, it doesnt help and is unconstructive. Caden ^cool 14:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Tertoger's edit history on the present page you will find a rationale for the blocking also on this page. Also, with the user being blocked indefinitely, isn't the issue somewhat moot? As for the user being inexperienced, please appraise yourself of the volume of belligerent interactions the user has nevertheless had time to engage in. __meco (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning the block. I'm questioning why Nick is preventing a new and inexperienced editor access to his own talk page. By Nick making it impossible for this editor to speak, I can't see any good coming from that. The issue is not moot because the way Nick handled this with a new user is not the way we do things here on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia we communicate. We do not shut the door on communication and what Nick is doing is wrong. Furthermore, I'm sorry to inform you this but Nick has had problems in the past for this sort of thing. Caden ^cool 18:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user is not as new as he might appear. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your sudden appearance here and on several other talk pages I've particpated on strikes me as very odd. Furthermore your link is irrelevant even though those edits are from 2012. Anyway I was talking about the English Wikipedia. Caden ^cool 19:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the normal way blocked editors who abuse their talk page are handled. I haven't disabled the ability to sent emails from this account, so the editor can use that avenue to appeal the block if they so wish (the email address is arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org). I'm not familiar with how things work on the Norwegian Wiki, but I imagine that they also block edit warring only accounts like this one. Nomoskedasticity was involved with responding to this editor's edit warring and has posted on this page several times before this discussion, so his or her comments here are to be expected. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]