User talk:Rockawaypoint

Hi Rockawaypoint! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Geographer Carl O. Sauer, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norse_colonization_of_North_America&diff=1266224293&oldid=1266194794 Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure of the question. Is there an error somewhere? Rockawaypoint (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s this: Geographer Carl O. Sauer, I don’t understand it. Doug Weller talk 20:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

What don't you understand? I see "...Geographer Carl O. Sauer" and a pop up note about him. Rockawaypoint (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That markup is very unusual. Doug Weller talk 21:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

No other accounts. But what is unusual? I see "Carl O. Sauer" as hypertext and it goes to this link- Carl O. Sauer Rockawaypoint (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The markup is. I've never seen it before, and neither have other experienced editors I asked. Hard to figure out how you learned it. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Norse colonization of North America that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Norse colonization of North America. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you please point to the specific comment that might be a problem. I think that some of the comments made in my direction were not exactly civil, but I definitely would like to see everything stay that way. Its very hard to navigate thru the messages, and my eyes don't work so well anymore! Rockawaypoint (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Please read over your comments again, if it isn't obvious ask again. But It is. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but it would be best to get a link from you... picking the right message would be hard with bad eyesight. Rockawaypoint (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

"I would also revert as undue adding an entire paragraph from a 44 year old document. Simonm223 (talk) 2:23 pm, Today (UTC+0)Reply

Isn't that just your biased opinion? All the argument here that Carl Sauer is not reliable source about the Norse in North America is completely groundless. See the chapter by Sauer in "American History and the Social Sciences." Sauer is still highly respected today, dead or alive.

American history and the social sciences : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

"....content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Rockawaypoint (talk) 2:39 pm, Today (UTC+0)Reply" Doug Weller talk 17:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

"'Are you sure you want to stick with that idea?.... that "Geography" does not apply here? That sir, rates only as your "opinion". Rockawaypoint (talk) 11:46 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)Reply" Doug Weller talk 17:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

So what is un-civil in anything I wrote? Rockawaypoint (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have time for this. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I do now. Calling someone biased is unacceptable. As is scare quotes around "opinion". Doug Weller talk 16:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Johannes Kristoffer Tornøe. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, yes there is much to do and add... I was wondering how to work on the article as a "stub"- I believe that is what a new article is called, but I'm a total newbie. Question... is Tornoe's listing at the Norwegian Polar Institute considered a "reliable source"? He is written up as a 'authority' in John R.L. Anderson's 1967 book "Vinland Voyage." Erik Wahlgren also refers to Tornoe a few times in his 1986 book "Vikings and America". Generally speaking, Tornoe is not that well known today, but he should be. Rockawaypoint (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You should ask about sources at WP:RSN. And as it stands, your draft is really not very good. You need to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography to see what a biography should look like. Also read WP:LEAD. Doug Weller talk 08:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not really an encyclopedia article. That kind of content could be polished for any number of websites, a blog, or one of the various east coast newspapers, but isn't really trending towards a reference biography. There's a great essay for writing articles from scratch at Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward, if you're still interested. Also, the license for the image at the commons seems implausible. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

He died in 1970, so the image was taken before that. When? Doug Weller talk 08:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, when? Doug Weller talk 21:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That photo looks to be from I'd guess 1965 when his two books were published. The photo was supplied by his son Kjell Tornoe who I believe passed away in 1995. It was a publicity shot. There is another photo like this on the Norwegian Polar Institute page files on Tornoe. Photos of him in East Greenland 'planting' the Norwegian flag are there too. Do you think those photos are in the public domain that are on the Nor. Polar Institute? Can they be shared on Wikipedia? I have another photo of J. Kr. Tornoe sitting in a small boat in a Norway waterway that came from his son Kjell. Rockawaypoint (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You are a very enthusiastic well read editor, but you are also a single purpose account here to push your point of view. You also have shown that you don't understand our policy on reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

See for a good guide. Doug Weller talk 08:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm looking at that info about 'Reliable Sources'. Seems Johannes Kr.Tornoe will meet the standards. His name [in the publishing field,] turns up in European sources in 1933, 1935, 1937 and in 1944.

In 1935 he had an article published in Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - [Norwegian Journal of Geography "Hvitserk Og Blaserk", Pages 429-443 |, Volume 5, 1935 - Issue 6 {"Published online: 30 Jul 2008"}

This article was partially translated and covered/reviewed in the Geographic Journal in 1937 under the short title of "Hvitserkr" The Geographical Journal 1937-06: Vol 89 Iss 6 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

For the article he produced in 1944, try this link. or this might lead direct to the full article, -

https://brage.npolar.no/npolar-xmlui/handle/11250/217292...

Meddelelser Nr. 56 "Lysstreif over Noregsveldets Historie" (with summary in English) av J. Kr. Tornoe I Paperback – January 1, 1944 [English summary starts on page 207 in the original 1944 publication.]

Tornoe's two books were published in 1964 +1965. "Early American History: Norsemen Before Columbus", [Universitetsforlaget, Oslo] and, "Columbus in the Arctic? and the Vineland Literature", [A.W. Broggers Boktrykkeri A/S, Oslo]

Tornoe then turns up in J.R.L Anderson's 1967 book [Funk and Wagnalls] "Vinland Voyage." He is mentioned ten or more times and is highly praised by Anderson as an authority.

He turns up again in Erik Wahlgrens's 1986 "Vikings in America" The Vikings and America (Ancient Peoples & Places): Wahlgren, Erik: 9780500021095: Amazon.com: Books

If you have that book, see pages - 144,149,150,151,156,163,184.

His books were reviewed a few times in the 1960s. More recently some other writers such as Kirsten Seaver have been dismissive of Tornoe, but I believe it's fair to say she was unduly harsh on him. He has been "...regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject...", as taken from the line below from Wikipedia. Have to run and do other stuff right now, but if I had more time, I probably could list a few more sources of different kinds.

...I just found this one online, - "Lands that Hold One Spelbound: A Story of East Greenland". By Spence Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary Press, 2008.

---------------------

from Wikipedia-

"...Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." Rockawaypoint (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Polarforschung 49 (2): 173-187, 1979 "Polar Mirages as Aids to Norse Navigation"

• W. Lehn, I. Schroeder
• Published 1979
• Environmental Science

[First two paragraphs from the article...]

"Introduction; The general hypothesis that polar mirages may in same way have had an influence on the migrations of early peoples has periodically appeared both in anthropological and historical works (JONES, 1964:1; LEE, 1968:28-29; TAYLOR, 1971:79). However, very little has been done to find and analyze specific examples in an attempt to identify precisely how the mirage was used. The intense scientific activity in Greenland between 1910and 1935 provided scientists an opportunity to observe the frequent refractive anomalies that occur in these regions. These observations led to numerous attempts at scientific analysis and generated a great deal of interest in the field of atmospheric optics (WEGENER, 1914, 1918; NOLKE, 1917; WURSCHMIDT, 1919; PERNTER & EXNER, 1922; KOCH & WEGENER, 1930; HUMPHREYS, 1940; etc.). Familiar with these effects and aware of the latest scientific evidence, TORN0E (1935) made the first serious attempt to integrate this evidence into the interpretation of Norse history. Nevertheless, a general lack of familiarity and inadequate computational resources hindered the application of theory to relevant situations..." Rockawaypoint (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It's great that you are so enthusiastic and well read. But you also don't seem to have any understanding of our sourcing policies and guidelines despite being informed that you don't. You are a "single person account". Note that "Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project." I was elected twice to the Committee. You also need to read WP:Bludgeon and WP:Tendentious editing as they describe your editing. In fact I commented on bludgeoning 12 days ago at Talk:Norse colonization of North America and you seem to have ignored that. Doug Weller talk 13:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I did look at those links. The lines below, in bold and italics, need to be mentioned here. As you noticed and commented earlier, --- I am NOT edit-warring, and you've said you appreciate that. Great. Let's strive to always be civil. We do have opposing opinions, - and that seems to be the only problem here. I believe some of the articles on Wikipedia that cover the story of the Norse in early America are NOT neutral but give undue weight to the Newfoundland "school". But Newfoundland has been rejected as the setting of "Vinland" again and again over the past sixty years by highly respected figures in academia.

From Wikipedia, "It must be understood that evidence that a user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area may suggest that the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus—this is perfectly acceptable."

and...

"...Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." Rockawaypoint (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean you looked at my mention of bludgeoning days ago? Doug Weller talk 15:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I try to look over everything but it's very time consuming to study all that is available. I see how important it is for everyone here to remain "neutral" when editing articles. But expressing opinions on Talk pages is different isn't it? - when attempting to improve the articles? Rockawaypoint (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is very time consuming to carefully review sources. This is why it frustrates other editors when they're peppered with a large quantity of low-quality sources such as century-old history texts and self-published popular histories. Remember that there's no deadline here. Spend more time reading and less time insisting that other editors satisfy you regarding your preferred hypotheses. Simonm223 (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It is really unfortunate to see you are under the impression that the sources I've listed are as you say above, "...low-quality sources such as century-old history texts and self-published popular histories." What would you say about how Birgitta Wallace is using Arthur Middleton Reeves' "The Finding of Wineland the Good." as a 'source' in the chapter she wrote for the 2015 book "From West to East: Current Approaches to Medieval Archaeology"? See page 44 and do the math. That book is now 135 years old!! But it is still considered to be highly reliable and a major 'work' today. Have you read it? Other older books I strongly recommend you read ASAP are William Babcock's book [look for the 1901 edition.] William Hovgaard' book from 1914; G.M. Gathorne-Hardy's 1921 book; and Harvard's Einar Haugen's book from 1942. If you have not read these books it is safe to say you are not as well informed on this topic as you may believe you are. Gathorne-Hardy's book has been called a model of historical method. Your message is un-civil to say the very least.

Wiki on Civility-

• Participate in a respectful and considerate way.
• Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors.
• Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making personal attacks; encourage others to do the same.

Rockawaypoint (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Rockawaypoint! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Vinland several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Vinland, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

As an uninvolved administrator watching Talk:Vinland: at this point you should either wait for further editors to comment here, or reach out to one of the venues described at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. to seek further opinions from other editors. Trying to edit your version in before you've gained consensus is going to lead to a block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for the advice. I was waiting for other editors to comment when I pointed out that the late Kirsten Seaver, who I'd say is highly respected by Wikipedian's of all types, was using Magnusson and Palsson as a "reliable source" in her book "The Frozen Echo." But that was a few days ago and as far as I know, NO comments from other editors have come in. I would like to start using Magnusson and Palsson's book "The Vinland Sagas", 1965 as a 'source' and I believe it is fully justified. They may have written their book in 1965 but it is still used as a college level textbook today. It is still 'cited' today. So what is the big problem with using it as source here... today?? I notice that there is resistance to using anything in the article that supports the view that Vinland/Wineland was in New England. I think that this is due in part to a major misunderstanding about who is behind the New England Vinland/Wineland theory. It's not all amateurs, but respected academics of all types, old and recent. The Vinland debate is still under way... there is NO agreed solution as suggested in the opening of the article. Rockawaypoint (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not the place to engage in detailed content discussions--the talk page is. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

So would you recommend I cut and paste that comment above and put it on the Vinland talk page?? I actually thought that was where it would be published, but I didn't notice till now it is only seen here. Rockawaypoint (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm telling you that this is your personal user talk page. No admin is going to come by after warning you and be interested in the minutiae of your arguments--that's not what admins do. But I looked at the edit, and its revert, and I will tell you two things--first of all, it's "its" and not "it's", and secondly, you can't shove material in the lead that isn't even in the article. "Virginia" isn't mentioned in the article, so it's real simple--if you put that in the lead again, you will be blocked. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand this is my own talk page. The other editors have not replied to the points I've been trying to get across lately, like recognizing that certain older "Vinland/Wineland" sources remain fully credible today. But other editors seem to want to try and pitch their personal idea that the Vinland debate is over with, but it is not. Theories still come in that mention Virginia, or New York, or Massachusetts, etc.... The debate still rages. And that is why I mentioned Virginia... not because I personally believe Vinland extended that far south, but because the door remains open to different theories BESIDES Newfoundland, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. Rockawaypoint (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEAD, which explains that the lead is "a summary of its most important contents". If there's no Virginia in the article, there can't be a Virgina in the lead. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not really trying to see Virginia mentioned in the article at all. My goal is to see that the article gives a 100% "neutral" and "accurate" view of the current state of the Vinland debate. NO particular location[s] are yet recognized by "academia" as "Vinland," the one and only. But the article right now is falsely claiming that Newfoundland and New Brunswick are "...described in the sagas." That is only someone's opinion. Newfoundland AND New Brunswick have NOT been accepted "universally" as Vinland. Some researchers DO still believe Virginia is part of the story, [not me however.] The 1965 book by Magnusson and Palsson, "The Vinland Sagas" is still highly regarded today by academics and is often 'cited' today. It states on pages 8 and 42 that most scholars have inclined to the view that Vinland was in New England. Some Wiki editors obviously have a real problem with that book and don't want to see it used as a "reliable reference." So how do I over-come all the bias shown by other editors? Even Birgitta Wallace, long time archeologist in charge of the work at L'Anse aux Meadows, has written "...it is impossible to equate northern Newfoundland with Vinland." See page 300, Gwyn Jones, "The Norse Atlantic Saga", 1986. Rockawaypoint (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

At this point what you're doing is just slow edit-warring, repeatedly inserting very similar changes to the lede for which you do not have consensus and for which ample explanation has been provided at article talk as to why consensus is against you. I have to ask why you are so committed to revising the lede of the Vinland article to suggest that Vinland is in some locale with no archaeological evidence of norse settlement. I want to add to your Birgitta Wallace quote because it demonstrates how you are cherry-picking. In 2019 Wallace wrote: L’Anse aux Meadows cannot be Vinland. However she didn't stop there. Vinland was a land, the same way Iceland and Greenland are lands, countries. But L’Anse aux Meadows is a place described in the sagas as part of Vinland. (emphasis mine) The same article contains a map that shows Vinland as being coterminous with the Gulf of St. Lawrence with the land masses included being the north and west shores of Newfoundland, the north shore of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Cape Breton Island and Anticosti Island. My personal views don't align with Wallace because I don't think Vinland correlates to any real material place. However a neutral article would not just stop with Wallace saying "L'Anse aux Meadows is not Vinland" nor would we go by her words in 1986 when she was still writing about the site in 2019. I keep telling you that you are depending too much on outdated sources that support your POV rather than approaching the article neutrally. I hope this demonstration will finally get this through to you.

Citation:

L'Anse Aux Meadows and Vinland. WALLACE, BIRGITTA LINDEROTH. Swedish Press. May2019, Vol. 90 Issue 4, p12-15. 4p.

Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

There is NO consensus about Newfoundland, New Brunswick, or any site!!! ...but the lead paragraph is reporting there is one!! The only real, well formed, close consensus that has EVER existed recently is the one that Magnusson and Palsson report in their 1965 book. This is what you need to realize about that ONE BOOK... it is STILL cited often today!!! IT IS NOT OUTDATED BY OTHER BOOKS!! Would you like some examples of where M&P are cited today?? You have been accusing me of using outdated sources... which is not true!! But there... I found a clear quote from KIRSTEN SEAVER!! You may not like it, but New England is still in the running in the Vinland debate. BUT THERE HAS BEEN NO RESOLUTION. When will you come to grips with that??? Rockawaypoint (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I have said all I can say to you about this. Please cease POV pushing.Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Wiki says..."All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

The southern New England/Vinland theories... and there are many of them form a veru large or a "...significant view..." in the Vinland debate. You DO NOT have a neutral point of view!! Magnusson and Palsson's view needs to be in the article if it is to be fair, and without [your] editorial bias. Rockawaypoint (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Rockawaypoint. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I have to disagree.... I assume good faith at all times, but will defend myself when people become Uncivil,... towards me. What did I 'do' specifically? Rockawaypoint (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an ongoing dispute about reverted edits. The thread is Rockawaypoint and Vikings. The discussion is about the topic Vinland. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 14:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

My 'reverts' were few. And now I 'just edited' in a way that seems to be OK with the critics. Rockawaypoint (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. This is WP:ASPERSIONS and is not acceptable. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The Vinland debate is highly heated, here and just about everywhere else. Very often a particular view, defended, can be misinterpreted as "bad faith" by people here with an opposing view. Looks like that is happening. I work hard at always being civil and steer clear of personal attacks better than many other people. Rockawaypoint (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

By community consensus, you are topic banned from Vikings, broadly construed. From one individual to another, I recommend listening to the warnings and advice people are giving you. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice. I'm really only concerned with the only true consensus in the Vinland debate, which holds that the "...majority of scholars have inclined to the view that Vinland was in New England," not Newfoundland. Many people get very upset when that is brought to their attention. Yet it is reliably reported on pages 8 and 42 of Magnusson and Palsson's 1965 book "The Vinland Saga". The book is still regarded as 'essential reading' in this long running debate. It is used as a college level textbook. It has not be "shelved." All the many theories that place Vinland in New England are completely misunderstood by even some academically minded people as coming only from "amateur researchers," but that is not the case at all. One hundred and eighty years of careful study by professional researchers finds that the best explanation for the information in the two sagas is that the Norse were in New England. Rockawaypoint (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

You might not be familiar with topic bans, so it would be a good idea to read WP:TBAN. Basically, you can't discuss anything to do with Vikings anywhere on the project, including your talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I was working on a new draft article about Johannes Kr. Tornoe, Norwegian researcher/writer. Does this ban prevent me from working on that one draft article?

Draft:Johannes Kristoffer Tornøe - Wikipedia Rockawaypoint (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it would prevent you from working on that article. -- asilvering (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

How do I go about protesting the ban? Rockawaypoint (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

See WP:BAN for information about bans and instructions on the appeal process. I can't say I recommend it. Take Bushranger's advice. -- asilvering (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

What would be the downside to appealing the ban? Rockawaypoint (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

You are very unlikely to successfully appeal the ban. You may be blocked if you repeatedly attempt to in a short amount of time. Listen to what Bushranger is saying. I really suggest you drop the subject and find something else to edit. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Rockawaypoint. I've closed the discussion at RSN and in doing so reverted your latest comment. If you've been topic banned you will could be blocked if your continue to comment in that discussion, as Schazjmd commented above you need to read WP:TBAN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Just to say this isn't a comment on the validity of your topic ban, or the reliability of the mentioned sources. I just don't won't to see you blocked because you don't understand what the topic ban means. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Worth noticing that Wiki says somewhere...."It must be understood that evidence that a user seems to be editing appropriately and collaboratively to add knowledge in a niche area may suggest that the user is likely to be an editor with a preferred focus—this is perfectly acceptable. Rockawaypoint (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Erm ok.. yes that's true, but it doesn't change the fact that you should no longer make any posts about Vikings. Even posting to other editors talk pages, as you did here, isn't allowed. To be clear I can't help you with the topic ban, I'm not an admin, I'm just letting you know why I closed the discussion at RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

To be entirely clear: yes, it's perfectly acceptable. If you weren't topic banned. You're topic banned. Discussing anything about Vikings on any Wikipedia page, with only two very limited exceptions, is a violation of that topic ban and, now that you are unmistakably aware of that, any further violations of the topic ban will result in your being blocked. Go and edit other topics on Wikipedia for six months, demonstrate that you can contribute collegially, and then appeal the topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Rockawaypoint. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Johannes Kristoffer Tornøe, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 01:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)