User talk:1.Erfolg

Welcome[edit]

Hello, 1.Erfolg, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 01:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

March 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from The Holocaust in Albania with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making random unsourced edits like you did on Estonia and Libya, etc. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK,I will provide my sources!1.Erfolg (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It kinda looks like you'll just try to push your edits in any way. :/ — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About your refs here - they're for the year 2013. Not 2015. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

estimates[edit]

If you go look at France, Italy, and Germany, you can see that in their infoboxes they use estimates about the GDP. I'm assuming this means that using the latest estimates is okay. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are a very good and clever Wikipedian , seriously. As for your version I think it is acceptable.1.Erfolg (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Illyrian emperors

added a link pointing to Constantine II

List of Roman emperors

added a link pointing to Dardania

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFER[edit]

This user asked to invoke the standard offer via UTRS. I have adjusted the block to allow them to make an appela here. I would strogly suggest to this user to review WP:GAB before doing so. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for (sockpuppetry), I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead. I have realised that only a honest behaviour can allow me to edit Wikipedia. The only thing I need is another chance. I waited more than six months for this chance and during this period of time I realised the only thing I want is to be a good editor. 1.Erfolg (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Before even considering an unblock request of a checkuser-blocked sockpuppeteer, I would like to see a full list of sock accounts. I don't think it's common to indefinitely block, with email and talk page access removed, the primary account of a sockpuppeteer when there are no issues besides the sockpuppetry itself (after what, about a week of edits?). This would be much more likely for a puppet of another already blocked account, duplicating that account's restictions. Huon (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2016 (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.

@Huon: Hi! Should I contact the blocking admin? I have waited for more than nine months to get unblocked.1.Erfolg (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should address the questions I raised: What other accounts did you use, and why did you feel a need to use multiple accounts within one week of editing? Huon (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon:To tell the truth I don't know which were my socks. I was blocked by checkuser but I wasn't told which were my socks or whose sock I was. I remember I asked Wikipedia team to create my account as I wasn't able to create by myself. I sent more than one request and probably this was the reason I was blocked for. Anyways, I have read every Wikipedia guideline I will not make wrong things anymore.1.Erfolg (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you understand what you were blocked for and "will not do it again" but will do something else "instead", but cannot remember doing it in the first place? Sorry, I don't believe that. Huon (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't told which my socks were. Probably this helps [1]

@DoRD:Can you please help with this matter?1.Erfolg (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: I checked my Windows documents and I found whose sock 1.Erfolg is. This [2] was my previous account. Malbin K. asked me via Facebook or email, don't remember well, to help him in his "war for justice". There were also two or three others who helped him. In that time I hadn't heard about checkuser and I believed I wouldn't be blocked as a sock of Malbin. I sent two or three account creation requests, I don't remember the exact number, and one of them was created. I wasn't keen on Wikipedia in that time so I was involved only in Malbin's interests. My account was blocked after some days, I don't remember the exact period of time I edited. After some time if I am not wrong I asked for account creation, I sent many requests, and 1.Erfolg was created. I'm very sorry about my past. I didn't know Wikipedia very much and even didn't remember my old account. Actually it wasn't my account, but Malbin's. I just did what he wanted me to do.1.Erfolg (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "Malbin K. asked you via Facebook or email", but the technical data confirmed that accounts Malbin210 and Huankmai were operated from the same computer. How is that possible? Why would he send you an e-mail if you two were using the same computer? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije:No, I have not used the same computer with Malbin. There are two possibilities. One is that you are lying or two that my computer was hacked from Malbin. Anyways, I don't want to edit Wikipedia anymore.1.Erfolg (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I had to ask an unblock request at my first account, but I have not very nice memories about that account. The block is no longer necessary because I understand that sockpuppetry isn't the right way. Now I know that if I try sockpupetry again, I'll be blocked. I have also thought about my new edits. Biographies and Prehistoric history are my favourites, I don't want to edit what other want me to edit anymore. Now that I have a real project to Wikipedia, my unblock would be only a positive act.

Decline reason:

Per conversation above where user offers pretty implausible explanation...that checkusers are lying or that we hacked his computer. only (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2016 (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.