Wolsemkosh

Re Swedes

"Why are you doing this?" Why don't you ask on the article talk page? Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, and where necessary after discussion on article talk pages. They are not determined by the number of random contributors who insist on putting through change without discussion.

And don't bother to reply here, I'm not going to respond unless you discuss the matter in the appropriate place, as repeatedly requested. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Wolsemkosh (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaosname for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Swedes. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. 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 the changes; 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 without further notice. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This is your last and only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Swedes. DVdm (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked Indefinitely

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

For sockpuppeteering with intent to disrupt, as per this admission[1].·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

incorrect statement so please unblock me

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).

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

---

Request reason:

my edit to swedes with the edit summary "i have 82 sock puppet sleepers so if you block me i just use then" was incorrect i was just in a sad mood because people reverted my edits so i said things i did not really mean Wolsemkosh (talk) 11:29 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

And I suppose that this account isn't yours either? Declining, checkuser confirmed socker. TNXMan 15:56, 23 September 2011 (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.

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chaosname/Archive - the same obsession with labelling people as 'Germanic'. Obvious sock is obvious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)