User talk:Pennanochsvärdet

September 2019

Hello, I'm Sjö. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Judiciary of Sweden, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sjö (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sjö. As you are a known politician, better not spoil the forum with last decades failed politics will you? Seriously only people born in the 1940:s believe such crap because of indoctrination and the then in judicial matters active Monarch.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennanochsvärdet (talk • contribs)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Judiciary of Sweden. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see WP:V and WP:PRIMARY for starters. Your own interpretations and opinions aren't reliable sources. Some of your claims are exceptional and would require exceptional sources, in particular those saying that the judiciary is partial or politically controlled. Also, it is an accepted etiquette on the English Wikipedia to comment on the content, not the contributor. Ad hominem arguments aren't appreciated here, such as the one above or in the edit comment here. Sjö (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Judiciary of Sweden. You also added unsourced text to Human rights in Sweden. As I wrote above, verifiablity and proper sourcing is important on Wikipedia. I started a section at Talk:Judiciary of Sweden, you're welcome to discuss there. Sjö (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Human rights in Sweden. Dharmalion76 (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. N.J.A. | talk 02:14, 27 September 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Users should not be blocked from editing based on false allegations from unserious users spreading false information on for concerned persons important issues like human rights and the swedish judiciary, but much less important for example for state of Swedens employees who under the very best of circumstances regards human rights as the enemy, rule of law as foreign concept and the European Union as a competitor. On the issue att hand - My user is the deliverer of facts and references.

Decline reason:

You added your own views and didn't provide reliable sources. Putting your opinion in a footnote doesn't make it a reference. Huon (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

If the Swedish law in its original source from the source is not a reliable source then you have actually proven that you are indeed arbitrarily putting socks in contributors mouths for 48 hrs. If a user believes that opinion has been stuck as reference footnote then the serious user marks the matter and asks for a solution in "good faith", the serious user does not put a sock in the mouth for 48 hrs by falsely alleging some form av minor wikisabotage or similar. Pennanochsvärdet (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. Your block has already expired. I strongly suggest you read WP:NOR before editing further, or you are very likely to see a substantially longer block next time, given your inappropriate editing. Yamla (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2019 (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.

Swedish law in its original source states that "the peaceful enjoyment of property" is a "severe concern" in Sweden? Which law says so? I'm not asking what law you think is problematic, of course. Huon (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]