User talk:Audun Haug Nilsen
April 2021
[edit]
Hello, I'm Zachary Daiquiri. I noticed that you recently removed content from Vaccination policy without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Zachary Daiquiri (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I did explain why. What are you, an idiot?
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Vaccination policy, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Zachary Daiquiri (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
If this is a human being, I think it should answer what I wrote, instead of spamming this site down with irrelevant BS that is dangerous to other humans.
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Zachary Daiquiri (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Why don't _you_ comment on content?
Hellooo! Anybody home? You were quick to answer before!
Attacking other editors
[edit] Hello, I'm Viewmont Viking. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you.--VVikingTalkEdits 14:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- 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 and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --VVikingTalkEdits 14:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
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:Audun_Haug_Nilsen reported by User:Zachary Daiquiri (Result: ). Thank you. Zachary Daiquiri (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Final warning about personal attacks
[edit]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors, as you did at User talk:Zachary Daiquiri. Thank you for engaging in discussion at Talk:Vaccination policy, but please make sure to focus discussion there on the content of the article, not on other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me? Personal attacks on some robot who calls himself Daiquiri? That is rich. Oh, and by the way, is _this_ a real person?? Because I've been through the rungs here, posting here and there without so much as a single sensible reply that wasn't on e-mail. That person told me that this was a PUBLIC forum, where decisions are reached by consensus. When there's no debate, no nothing, how do we reach a consensus? All of you bots (?) have been talking about RULES, but you don't seem to care about those when it comes to to the point, now do you? Suddenly, this is not a PUBLIC forum anymore, but a private little get together for you to harass people who contribute. Shame on you! Why are we here? You've all forgotten why this thing came about in the first place! Truth is, you guys are a bunch of "inadequate" morons with no sense of duty, whatsoever! Rules are there for a reason, nay? Well, act like adults, and own up to your own idiosyncracies! If a public person wasn't liable for his actions, then what the hell is democracy all about?! Can you answer me that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audun Haug Nilsen (talk • contribs)
- Zachary Daiquiri is a real person, not a robot. There is no requirement for editors to use their real names; many use pseudonyms. Second, there are standardized templates that can be used for warning messages. I used the {{uw-harass4}} template for the message above, and I supplemented the standard message with the text in italics.
- Additionally, editors are located in multiple time zones and may not be available to immediately answer messages. Your first message to Talk:Vaccination policy was made at 14:27 UTC: mid-afternoon in the UK and Europe, during the morning work hours on the US east coast, and in the early morning on the US west coast. It will take time for people to see the message and respond. As for going "through the rungs", I see where you've made some bold edits to the Vaccination policy edit, have been reverted, and are now engaging in discussion at the talk page. All that happened today, though. Unless there's an outpouring of support for one position in the discussion today, the discussion will probably continue the next several days or so until a consensus is reached. (And if there's no participation, there are ways to invite people in.)
- One other note: the cited work is in an offline source, so it will take additional time to verify what's in it. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, do what you do best. Censor opinion and wallow in your own filth. disgusting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Audun Haug Nilsen (talk • contribs)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Audun Haug Nilsen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You people have no regard for public discourse. If saying what others are saying on a public platform is grounds for INDEFINITE blocking, then why don't you just string me up in the town square? How infantile can you get? Audun Haug Nilsen (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Wikipedia is a privately operated website. Just as you can determine what is said and done within the four walls of your residence, Wikipedia can determine what is done on its computers. Wikipedia is not a free speech platform. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment where people of all opinions, political views, religions, races, and sexualities work together to write an encyclopedia of human knowledge for the benefit of humanity. Your uncivil battleground comments do not aid that goal. If your views prevent you from working with others in a civil manner to achieve a consensus as to what an article should say, you will need to spend your time somewhere else that is more compatible with your views and will tell you what you want to hear. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2021 (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.
I received your email; as a matter of policy I don't discuss nonprivate matters by email. Your recourse is to make an unblock request where you address why you were blocked and tell what you will do differently. I'd also suggest leaving out attacks. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Audun Haug Nilsen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't understand why I was blocked. Is it not OK to tell someone who tells you to SHUT UP that they're an idiot? Talk about civil discourse! What in the world is going on here? You must be the fifth person to make me feel like I'm a child who needs to grow up! ...and I'm not telling anyone to SHUT THEIR FACE! Wrong is wrong. I couldn't say I would have acted any differently, and I'm here with my full name. I'm not playing any games. Audun Haug Nilsen (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No, it's not OK to call anyone an idiot on Wikipedia. We do not tolerate personal attacks. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:50, 21 April 2021 (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.
How is it not a personal attack to revert my change, saying I "didn't give a reason" when I did? Have you no sense of honour? Have you no shame? No intellectual pride? I mean, come on, guys! What are we doing here?
- You are very close to losing access to this page unless you dramatically change course now. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, so it's OK for him to do it to me but I can't do it to him, is that what you're saying? Very mature, very grown up. I'll bet you're all over this guy, right? Giving him a hard time too? Give me a break.
- There are proper procedures to address personal attacks against you. Did you make use of them? Fighting fire with fire is not one of them. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Save me your proverbs. The dude called me an idiot, OK? I called him an idiot. Big deal. Now where are we? lost at sea in a smaaall boat
- If you aren't going to show a tiny bit of contrition, and tell what you will do differently in the future, there is nothing more to do here. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Contrition? I don't know that word, but I can make a qualified guess. You want me to say I'm sorry. Look, the dude had an emotional response and didn't own up to it. Not after two chances. If anything _he_ should be the one making an entry on the talk page?! Did you even read the premise for this whole debacle or are you just trying to make me feel bad, because _that's_ all _I'm_ getting from this.
- I don't want you to say you are sorry if you aren't. Forced apologies are not apologies. It'd be nice, and help your case, but if you aren't, don't. What you should do is discuss how your actions,-not those of others- were disruptive to this collaborative project and what you will do differently in the future. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- I got your email as well but like 331dot I'd prefer to deal with it here too. In an unblock appeal you need to demonstrate that you understand what is wrong. From your unblock appeals I can't see that you do. We have processes on how to deal with personal attacks. We also have processes on what to do if you don't agree with content. I'd suggest reading WP:CIVILITY. I'd also suggest taking some time out. 5 albert square (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what to say to that that hasn't already been said. The guy undid my edit saying I gave no explanation, which I did. To me, that's calling me an idiot. I called _him_ an idiot and now you guus are on some power trip, some ego rush, some stuck in a rut automato roboto, I don't know, and I don't care. What I care about is the truth, and the truth is the dude was rude to me first.
- If you want to be a right fighter, this is the wrong place for you. Responding to personal attacks with personal attacks is not acceptable here. You may either do as suggested, or not. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)First, please sign your posts. You do that by typing four tildes after your message. ("~~~~") I also received your email, and like my fellow administrators feel it is best to discuss a non-private matter in the open. It's simple. You can't call other editors names. You can't edit war, even if you're right. If these principles of Wikipedia are unacceptable to you, then you shouldn't waste your time with us unreasonable people. Regarding your original complaint, the claim is sourced to a very reliable source. What you should do if you feel the wording of hte article is not supported by the given source is to discuss your reasons on the talk page, being very specific about the reasons why the source does not match the article content. But before you can do that, you must edit in a collaborative manner. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I can abide by rules, no doubt. Where didn't I say that? I was under the impression that I was a lowly outcast, plague-ridden and destined for a big, black of hole of oblivion. I'm glad to, finally, have someone on my side.
Now, when it comes to the statement you made about the premise, I must beg for consideration! I mean, the declaration made was in no way supported by the data provided in the "reputable" source! Did you read the thing?! As I've stated earlier, the data in that paper was from a _single incident_, in the 1800s! They were waddling in horse manure in the streets! I mean, how ludicrous is this going to get? I say a bad word, and now there are no standards?
By courtesy 21:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Also, undoing an edit is not calling someone an idiot. It's simply undoing an edit. If they said that you didn't provide an explanation and you did then it's a mistake. 5 albert square (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
All right, I get it. You guys are touchy about that, but I can't go up to a person and say they're not giving an explanation when they're giving an explanation. That's not honest. That's criminal.
- (edit conflict) I'm not on your side, any more than any other editor who wants to constructively contribute here. In addition to the original personal attacks, you insulted at least two administrators who have volunteered their time, given to you for free, to review your case. Like 331dot, I'm about ready to revoke your talk page access. If you change your interaction style, what you should have done is make a request for comment on the talk page, since medical issues are very seldom simple. Outline your case clearly, dispassionately, without hyperbole. If you use wording similar to the above, your will gain no traction. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Please.. You can't even address me with proper grammar to a tee, and you're acting like a holy roller, threatening me in the same turn. You guys really give creedence to the maxim that you can't prove your innocence. When all you get is insults, the people handing out the punishment should expect nothing less in return.
If you can't see that I was trying to get liberty, then you're not about liberty, you're about something else. Excuse me for being "verbose", but atleast I'm about what is real, and you're not conceding any of the points I've been making at that, much less addressing them.
...and if you want to make what is a matter of common courtesy into a "medical issue", you're really out rowing. if that was the case, I don't understand why any of the points I've already made aren't being addressed. You really want to me to make my case here? Again?
The statement was euphemistic, saying "Vaccination _greatly_ reduces infections". That's one right there. The work referenced was shoddy. That's two. Viral infections are a theory yet to be proven by Koch's postulates. That's three, but I wasn't going there. I was responding to an intellectually dishonest statement, and for what it's worth, if you knew the first thing about vaccinations, you'd know that the reduction in diseases that are claimed to be prevented by them were decreasing as people got refridgerators, as nutritious food was more available, as the automobile spread, as hygiene became more common with inlaid water, and as people's living standards were improving in the work place. Correlation does not deem causation.
April 2021
[edit]
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Audun Haug Nilsen, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.