User talk:BjörnBergman

Archives for this page

This talk page has an archive.

Your recent moves

Hi. I see you've recently been moving several BLP articles. You apparently use birthday.se as your source when moving the articles. However, I'm questioning the reliability of your moves. For example: You moved Björn Gustafson to Björn Gustafsson (born 1934). I've reverted that move. Does birthday.se qualify as a source? I've brought that question to the reliable sources noticeboard. Thanks. Hey Mid (contributions) 15:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Heymid! I moved the article, because I saw his name on www.birthday.se. They are registering persons who live in Sweden and that is the real name, so I will move the article to Björn Gustafsson (born 1934). Björn Bergman 17:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I was questioning the reliability of your moves (the source); "Björn Gustafson" is used at both the Swedish Wikipedia and IMDB. Also, you can perform a Google search for "Björn Gustafson", if you want to. I'm fairly convinced it should be "Björn Gustafson". Hey Mid (contributions) 18:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Caroline Wennergren

The article Caroline Wennergren has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — Bill william compton^Talk 21:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nassim Al Fakir

The article Nassim Al Fakir has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — Bill william compton^Talk 22:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Carl Englén

The article Carl Englén has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Eeekster (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sunes jul

I reverted one of your edits to Sunes jul. There is absolutely no reason not to use "#" in the table. You also changed one of the episode titles to an incorrect one. Iusethis (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that we don't link dates and years on English Wikipedia. And articles about Swedish subjects usually use the date format "1 January 2011" instead of "January 1, 2011". Iusethis (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasios Diakos, Greece

I reverted the article back to my version. I rewrote this article because a lot of it was badly written, unverifiable and/or trivial. It was written by the now blocked User:Pumpie, who wrote hundreds of articles like this. I kept the relevant bits, and found a ref for the name change (which you removed btw). If you think I removed something valuable, I invite you to find a reference for it. Markussep ^Talk 15:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry for my mistake. Now I think it was good that you removed the vandalism. I hope you'll continue with reverting vandalism. Best regards Björn Bergman 15:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, happy editing! Markussep ^Talk 16:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vladimir Dikanski for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vladimir Dikanski is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Dikanski until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dubrilla Ekerlund

The article Dubrilla Ekerlund has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is five years old and nothing substantial has been added. Actress appears to be not notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Postcard Cathy (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Conny Andersson (actor)

The article Conny Andersson (actor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Actor whose notability is very little it appears.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wgolf (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Olle Myrberg

The article Olle Myrberg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Actor with little notability who only had 2 roles.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wgolf (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fredrik Myrberg

The article Fredrik Myrberg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Actor with little notability who only appeared in 2 roles.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wgolf (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fredrik Myrberg for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fredrik Myrberg is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Myrberg until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wgolf (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Repeatedly and deliberately editing which introduces incorrect information, as you have done at List of the verified oldest people, and which you have done on other occasions, is considered disruptive and can lead to your being blocked from editing. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up and you'll be taken to WP:AE. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DerbyCountyinNZ: Just curious, but have you explained the UTC rule? I would have just used WP:BRD and explained the issue on the talk-page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In this edit. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is that you should have just invoked WP:BRD in this edit: [1]. I know this because at one point I was also in the dark about UTC times. It isn't vandalism or disruptive editing but a lack of communication. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to edit early as you did today on List of Japanese supercentenarians and List of supercentenarians from Asia. You have already been advised that the edit goes by UTC as of the time of your edit. I will be reverting any future edits like these and taking further action. TFBCT1 00:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BjörnBergman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BjörnBergman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nyboda Depot

The article Nyboda Depot has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 2605:6000:ED08:DD00:F013:B4E7:543B:45EF (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic countries

Just reverting your edit where you merged multiple countries to the Nordic article. An AFD was held on this data set and it was found to be not notable. See here. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Regarding your removal of Adele Dunlap from List of oldest living people, when you remove someone from a living persons list, you should provide the reference for the removal directly, i.e. in the edit summary, of every list you remove them from. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot, sorry... But I tried to link to a reliable source but you doesn't seem to have observed that. Björn Bergman 16:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I didn't see it because you didn't put the link to the obituary in the List of oldest living people edit summary when you removed her from that list. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now, Adele Dunlap is confirmed dead by Table E. Björn Bergman 16:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the reference you provided when taking Adele Dunlap back off the Oldest Living People list, only took me back to your history page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_supercentenarians_from_the_United_States&action=history . When you provide references it would be great if you could make sure they go to the page with the source that proves it. I had put Adele Dunlap back on earlier because I could not find any sources that showed her death. However, a news story was just published today showing her death, so I will not revert your edit again (which I had only reverted once). This is the news story that shows Adele Dunlap's death: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/09/oldest-american-adele-dunlap-dies-at-age-114.html . Thanks! JasonPhelps (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GM

Sorry about getting my explanation up after vs before changing the article. Please reply to the RS issues when you get a chance. Currently we don't have WP:RS's that support the 2005 claim and you removed two that support the 2007 claim. Again, sorry that the explanation was posted after the change. Springee (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes reverted - Opel / Vauxhall sale agreed but has not yet taken place

Hi there,

Your changes to General Motors and several other articles have been reverted; please note that while the sale has been agreed, it has not yet taken place, and in addition you haven't supplied any citations. (Which I would not expect to be possible if it hasn't actually been sold yet anyway).

Please don't rush in and jump the gun in your eagerness to add the latest information to articles. Thanks. Ubcule (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian supercentenarians

You added twice in last months the case of Santa Gennari in the list of oldest Italians. Please notice that her case is already in list. She died in 2011 (not in 2009 as you reported) and ranked correctly as 23th so your edit was a mistake. --78.12.97.132 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit war

Please respect talk page consensus. Springee (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Björn, you have violated the 3RR rule. Please self revert or this may have to go to WP:AN3. Also, please understand that consensus is against altering the data as you have done and that such alteration is a violation of NOR. Springee (talk)

3RR violation discussion related to your recent edits

This is to notify you that I have opened a 3RR noticeboard discussion related to your recent edits here [[2]]. The discussion is here [[3]] Springee (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

For some reason, you stopped discussing the edits on the talk page and started edit warring instead, to the point that you violated the Three revert rule. You've been blocked for 24 hours due to this. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 22:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring. You are at 3RR today via an IP address and 4 reverts in a row over 2 days. Springee (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motor vehicle ranking

In the spirit of WP:BRD, can we all agree to stop editing/reverting articles concerning the ranking of motor vehicle production and to try to discuss it instead. After we have some form of resolution from the discussion (or at least an edict from the administrators), then we can make the articles match to whatever the discussion resolved.

Furthermore, a discussion spread out over many talk pages is hard to follow and mostly results in the same arguments being repeated for no benefit. If it failed to convince anyone at one talk page then why would it convince the same people at another page?

I suggest we put the majority of our discussion at Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production.

This message has also been placed on the talk page of the other editors involved. Stepho talk 01:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BjörnBergman, you have restored many of the same edits that were in dispute just a few days back. Again, please understand that there are concerns regarding OR and that as a party to the discussions you shouldn't revert/restore/recreate content that you know is already in dispute. This can be see an extension of the previous edit war. BTW, I would like to apologize for the block. I wanted only to get your attention with a warning. You need to come to the table and discuss things and not act unilaterally, especially when there are policy concerns. Springee (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BjörnBergman, you have now twice been blocked for edit warring related to automobile production numbers. Your recent mass revert of content suggests you still haven't learned. You didn't respect that you have been previously reverted. Now that the content is being discussed on the talk page and we have on active RfC which you should participate in, large scale changes without discussion look really bad. Please discuss changes first! Springee (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BjörnBergman, please self revert your recent edit here [[4]]. JFG's edits should not have been whole sale reverted without talk page discussion. You are aware that the material in question is being discussed on the talk page. You also have now been twice blocked for edit warring. If you don't self revert I will file an edit warring compliant. Springee (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

User:Cyberpower678/IABot Management Interface/JSON to translate is where I placed the language file for the en language. If you and maybe some of your friends could translate this, I would greatly appreciate it. It's quite simple. Don't touch the keys, left-hand side, and only translate the values, right hand side. If you bork the JSON syntax somehow, it will not let you save so, it should be easy to spot what was borked.

I simply copied Cyberpower678s message to me. I have tried to translate as many as I can. If you find time for it could you take a look. I think Cyberpower would really appreciate it as he is trying to complete work on a bot that will archive dead links on SvWiki. You can perhaps not help me with this but at least I try to ask :)--BabbaQ (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in an edit warring complaint

Please see this notice about edit warring at List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production. If the IP changing the article belongs to you, it would help avoid consequences if you would state the fact. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. You've been reverting the article both with an account and an IP, and this is viewed dimly under WP:SOCK. It is also the second time that you've been edit warring on the article in the last two weeks. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock me. I just try to write correct information in this linked article about the largest automakers but others always change my edits though they shouldn't do that. Then why do you block me? I didn't mean to edit war, I just tried to get the article to get correct statistics/information but others always revert me, is that my fault? Björn Bergman 20:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yes, it's your fault. Edit warring is never acceptable -- and since you were blocked for it two weeks ago, you should consider a new approach to your editing. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:18, 11 April 2017 (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.

Editing longevity articles

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above notice. Firstly, I am surprised you have not been given this before (it is standard procedure for anyone with a history of editing such articles). Secondly, edits (or at least edit summaries) such this are the sort of edits that have seen other longevity fans topic-banned from Wikipedia. I recommend caution if you are considering make such edits in the future. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint of edit warring

See User talk:81.230.149.213#Renewed edit warring at List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production. This IP presumably belongs to you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing multiple accounts

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts.

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 ~~~~}}.

See this complaint on my talk page for the original problem. You are evidently the same person as the two Swedish IPs 81.230.149.213 (talk · contribs) and 194.218.16.122 (talk · contribs). Evidence of the past problems involving you and the IPs can be seen in the Archive 339 report and the Archive 340 report.

You were involved in an edit war back in March and April. The resumption of this war in October was pointed out to me on my user talk by User:Urbanoc. You have been edit warring at List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production and on articles regarding longevity. This problem has now lasted a long time, and your attitude to Wikipedia editing has not improved since the events of April. There is no point in you continuing to edit here if you don't intend to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I want to be unblocked. I have NOT done any unconstructive edits with this account. That unconstructive edits you refer to are done by some anonymous IP editor, that isn't me. Besides that, I have been blocked for about two months now, that may be enough. I need to do some important edits on Wikipedia, but now I can't 'cause I'm blocked, so please unblock me.

Decline reason:

I don't think you're being honest; the article overlap, timing and types of edits make it pretty clear that the IP editor is you. It is pretty obvious from your persistent edit warring that unblocking you while you're still having integrity issues and without addressing the primary problem is a bad idea. Kuru (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have not been edit warring on articles for longevity for a long time, and I'm not doing that right now, there is NO reason to block me just for so old incidents. I have NOT edit warred on List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production, I just tried to revert others 'cause others removed my edits when I tried to add information that Ford once owned Mazda and that General Motors' production number is not fully correct, is that edit war? I don't think there is any reason to block me just for that. Besides that, the very recent edit-warring edits at that article come from IP adresses and not from my own account. I have already been blocked for 2 months now, that may be enough. I would like to be unblocked now, or at least get a time-limited block, please. I may need to do some important edits on Wikipedia and then I need to get unblocked. Björn Bergman 16:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I wasn't edit warring, I was just reverting other peoples' edits" - yes, which is edit warring. Also there is reasonable suspicion that the IPs are you: that the first part of your statement can be taken to confirm (since you say that you were reverting) and the second, attempted denial, doesn't actually deny ("they were IPs, not my account" - yes, and from their actions it is heavily implied that their edits were you; the implication that "it doesn't matter because they weren't my account" is exactly how that doesn't work. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 19 December 2017 (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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

But there is no reason to block me indefinitely just for edit warring, you would at least give me a time limited block. Besides that, I have already been blocked for two months, that may be enough. Björn Bergman 14:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=But there is no reason to block me indefinitely just for edit warring, you would at least give me a time limited block. Besides that, I have already been blocked for two months, that may be enough. [[user:BjörnBergman|Björn]][[user talk:BjörnBergman|''Bergman'']] 14:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=But there is no reason to block me indefinitely just for edit warring, you would at least give me a time limited block. Besides that, I have already been blocked for two months, that may be enough. [[user:BjörnBergman|Björn]][[user talk:BjörnBergman|''Bergman'']] 14:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=But there is no reason to block me indefinitely just for edit warring, you would at least give me a time limited block. Besides that, I have already been blocked for two months, that may be enough. [[user:BjörnBergman|Björn]][[user talk:BjörnBergman|''Bergman'']] 14:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}