en User talk:Teertrevo

December 2021

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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is just outright religious discrimination isn’t it? I am not being a troll! I Joined here to give accurate information thats all. Just because someone has a different viewpoint than yours doesn’t means you are superior to everyone else. This site is extremely bigoted and I’m quitting. read WP:BLOCKNO. Teertrevo (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC) I’m also not threatening anyone, again this is outright discrimination towards someone’s who you don’t like.Teertrevo (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you say you are quitting, there is no need to review this unblock request. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2021 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I’m sorry I did disruptive behavior on Wikipedia, I promise I will not do it again. I promise I will just work on fashion articles and thats all. Teertrevo (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sadly your edit history indicates an extended pattern of disruptive editing, with a pretty high likelihood that it would resume if unblocked. Your best bet is the standard offer of going six months with no sockpuppetry or other disruptive editing, then lodging a fresh unblock appeal. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2021 (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.

Comment and request

You gave up too easily, I say get back on the field and make them go to instant replay. And by the way, please post again here the Britannica source you were asking about, thanks. I can't read it from my browser and someone else should check to see if it meets the reputable bar. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Shroud-of-Turin you may need to copy and paste it.Teertrevo (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, can someone let me know if it's reputable? And please be civil and turn the other cheek and all, Wikipedia requires it even if other editors aren't playing nice. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may help. (From Wikipedia):Encyclopedia Britannica, hope that helps!Teertrevo (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn I decided I am going to get back on the battle field!Teertrevo (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, it's not a battlefield. Put that spin on it and the Wikipedian touchstones of civility and assume good faith lay outside the circle and you miss the life lessons. I don't know what the gripes are, and not that interested, but can report that my only contact with this editor (as far as I recall) came earlier today when he started a productive and encyclopedia-building discussion on the talk page of Shroud of Turin. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s me Teertrevo (Sorry I thought you were talking to me)Teertrevo (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: the Britannica is generally dicey. It's editors are often not experts in the subject field and are as likely to get something wrong or miss something as our editors for some subjects. I've even seen someone who has socked prolifically on Wikipedia to add fringe material to Mona Lisa get that into the Britannica. The Britannica has no NPOV policy and the other advantage of Wikipedia is that you often find more sources being relied upon for our articles than the Britannica equivalent article uses. And of course you have no way of knowing what sources the Britannica uses. The last update of their Shroud article was by someone with an "M.S. in Plant Biology and Conservation ". Also note that the associated video is an argument for authenticity. Much better to use secondary sources. Doug Weller talk 16:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed reply. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you come back

I hope you reconsider quitting, as Wikipedia always needs editors. If so, maybe just avoid topics that you're too close to. It can be hard to see outside of our personal worldview sometimes, but it's a necessary part of collaborating on a global project. It can be hard, but every day we're here we learn and grow a bit more. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyrrho the Skeptic: Don’t worry I will still be active on my talk page, but I’ve been blocked forever as you can see above. I will come back in the future, but it’s going to be a while before that happens. Thanks for your wishes though. Teertrevo (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice too.Teertrevo (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrrho the Skeptic You know what. Your advice really helped me to know what I need to do. Thanks!Teertrevo (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that. I hope it works out for you. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details, but you've had a couple bumpy rides getting blocked before in your Wikipedian education. Hopefully you don't mind learning curves and one of the blocking editor will give you a break. You've been kicked out of places before, or is this the first time? Wikipedia is really a great community to be part of, and you've only been here a few months and may need these types of incidents to give you some learnin'. Anyway, you say that the charge you're not here to build an encyclopedia is untrue, and I for one think that your discussion at the Turin Shroud talk page seems concerned with building the article by adding what could be a valid source, which you enquired about. Seem buildy to me. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Yeah I have been blocked before because I do become overly obsessive when I am focused. Glad you support me.Teertrevo (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time of letting things go when i become addicted to it. Teertrevo (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few ways that I think editing again would be possible in the future. If an experienced editor volunteers to mentor you and you carefully heed their advice, it would help. With or without that, if you agree to a temporary topic ban in the area of religion, broadly construed, or specify what exactly you would like to work on, it's possible that an admin will allow it. Of course, you should expect another block soon if promises are violated. There's a lot of work one can do on WP, my user page has tables and lists of venues to maintenance tasks. A lot of people edit WP within their own areas and with their own limits (and everyone has limits and personal convictions, acknowledging and managing that is part of learning and the editing process). Just like evaluating the reliability of sources, that should not be construed as religious discrimination. You have expressed an interest in clothing and fashion and it's something not all editors know about. Although semi-active, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion exists. Those are collaborative topic-specific projects with their own noticeboard, with a collection of pages to store useful resources, like a list of commonly acceptable sources on the topic, article style guides, to-do lists, etc. Some projects focus on technical aspects of the encyclopedia, like citation cleanup (usually repetitive but useful tasks). —Paleo Neonate – 18:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did hear about WP:Fashion, I’ll look into it, and thanks for the advice! Teertrevo (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ponyo.

@Ponyo: Hey Ponyo, I don’t want to think that me and you are enemies that was not my intention. Sorry it looked like I was being a troll. I wasn’t. I just want to let you know I am on the Autism Spectrum (more specifically Asperger’s) and I can get overly obsessed with something (That’s why I was very keen on having atheism in neckbeard). I don’t wang you to think we are enemies. And I got really hurt when you and bbb called me a crook and compared me to Nixon. That was really rude and mean. Please don’t bully. I just want to be friends with you and not eniemes. Also it is also hard for me to understand things. SO please explain it very well. Thanks. Teertrevo (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ping me to your page. Note that I've restored your declined appeal; while many user talk page items can be removed from your page, declined appeals while the block is in place is not one of them.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo Thanks Ponyo. Teertrevo (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that you just pinged her again...after she specifically asked you not to.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn’t realize putting a u is pinging. I thought re was pinging. My bad. Teertrevo (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There are a number of ways to ping editors. Safest thing is to never put a user's name in braces or brackets.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, but why did you call me a crook and compared me to Nixon, that was really meanTeertrevo (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call you a crook; it just appeared that way to you. When you said in your first unblock request "I'm not a troll" (paraphrasing), it reminded me of Nixon's infamous denial. That's it. Please realize that I don't know you at all. I never even heard of you until today when I read your comment on Ponyo's Talk page. So, whatever motives you think I have for blocking you are misplaced. For example, I had no idea what religion you are (and don't care, either, as it's not my business).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining and clearing things up. The I got the religion idea because earlier today I created a post on the Shroud of Turin talk page (Cleaning up the Article), and to my perspective it looked like I was being attacked because of my beilefs. Thank you for clearing things up.Teertrevo (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok if you unblock me though since I was misinterpreting the situation?Teertrevo (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you because of your behavior, which includes creating a hoax article, creating promotional pages, socking, not getting along with other editors, and excusing your behavior on Asperger's (you should read WP:AUTIST). Your lack of insight into your own behavior is also a problem. Overall, you are not an asset to the project, which is pretty much the definition of WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never made a promotional page. I do not work at the Gentleman’s Gazette. I only made that page because I wanted the worlds to know about it. Is making a Brook Brothers page considered promotional? NO!Teertrevo (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now I would admit that I didn’t add enough citiaions(that was a bad at my part). Keep in mind I was going off of a YouTube video on how to create a article. The hoax I made was to make a joke with the editors, as it can get pretty boring on here. I have Asperger’s in real life BTW.Teertrevo (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok if you delete my account? I’m fine with that. I’ve realized Wikipedia isn’t for me.Teertrevo (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts cannot be deleted, but you can just leave.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: know this will sound really stupid and embarrassing, but I promise I won’t do any disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. If I get unblocked from you or another editor, I will promise I will acknowledge my own faults, and will only edit fashion articles. Teertrevo (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the next reviewing admin

Since Teertrevo still has one open request for unblock, I will respond to Randy Kryn's comment above. Randy says Teertrevo "started a productive and encyclopedia-building discussion on the talk page of Shroud of Turin." The discussion consisted on Teertrevo's part of making points incompatible with Wikipedia's policies and then, when other editors explained that they were incompatible with Wikipedia's policies, saying they never said that, and questioning whether the objector had read their post. (Full transparency: I was one of those editors.) That's hardly "a productive and encyclopedia-building discussion"; it looks like either trolling or a competence issue to me. Incidentally, some of your contributions to the same discussion, Randy, were complete trolling with no alternatives. When Teertrevo said people hadn't read their post, you responded "Volunteers aren't required to read anything, even as they reply. The magic of Wikipedia and volunteer culture."[1] Is that encyclopedia-building in your world? It's a classic troll and a damaging thing to say to a new user, which makes it more, not less, likely that they go down a path which leads to a block. Bishonen | tålk 05:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Just stating the facts and trying to resolve the acknowledged perceived tension of the discussion, which included someone adding a cartoon pretty much mocking and goading this editor and his good faith question. Still interested if the Britannica source Teertrevo asked about is reputable. And by the way, since we're talking blocks, isn't it about time you or another admin unblock the admittedly often-blocked rascal User: Koavf with a year-long time served, one of the oddest indefs here given that he has his own Wikipedia holiday? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bishonen, I just want to make clear I am not a troll. Sorry if it looked that way to you, It wasn’t my intention. The reason I thought you didn’t read my post was because from my perception, you said things that weren’t exactly in my post, keep in mind this is just my perception. Again I am against trolling at all odds. Also I didn’t know all the Wikipedia rules, I didn’t even know there were some things I said that would have been incompatible with WP. Teertrevo (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Vintage Menswear

Hello, Teertrevo. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vintage Menswear, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]