User talk:Winkelvi

Not that it will make much difference in your day-to-day, but I've retired the "anti-filibuster" sanction that I placed on you in August 2018, so that no longer applies. The other sanctions are set to expire soon.

Unrelated, but I remember in the previous site-ban discussion MONGO proposed some sort of reverse topic ban where you'd limit yourself to editing only 5 articles. That might be a starting point for an unblock...getting those articles to GA with no drama could be used as evidence to appeal for a less restrictive ban. I dunno...maybe it's a bad idea, but it's a start. ~Awilley (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have likely seen this already, but I should probably notify you that I have closed your unblock request as unsuccessful. Please read the comments there carefully before any subsequent requests. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Winkelvi&redirect=no Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Trump Baby Balloon at protest in Parliament Square.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. 182.239.120.76 (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi - I think you should respond to the accusations of socking, especially if you are innocent. If you don't defend yourself, it will be assumed that you are guilty which makes it doubtful the community will allow you to return...provided you even want to return. j/s ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[User:Atsme]: Even being completely truthful and saying it's not me, I'm pretty sure nothing I do at this point will mean squat. I recall being called a liar here numerous times, by regular editors and admins, when I wasn't lying, but being totally honest. I'm not wanted in Wikipedia, that's been plain since even before my indef, in addition to the subsequent denial of request to return, and now being "tried" and tagged as a sockmaster solely on circumstantial "behavioral" evidence by a relatively new editor and admin/CU with whom I've never interacted when I was editing. How anyone can believe they are knowledgeable of someone's behavior without ever experiencing that person's behavior is beyond my understanding and logic, but the result is what it is. Wikipedia as a mostly anonymous community has shown me it is unforgiving and the normal rules of the real world don't apply. Based on all that, I think trying to defend myself, drawing up a case, and being hopeful for a return to editing would be a complete waste of everyone's time and end only in disappointment for me.

I do thank you for caring, though. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry you left. You were my friend :( cookie monster (2020) 755 18:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing that got cleared up. Some folks see the boogeyman under the bed, in the closet, behind the couch.--MONGO (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi was mean to me during the sockpuppet investigation that got me blocked 4 years ago. cookie monster (2020) 755 21:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

😂 Second Skin (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I object to any unblocking of this user! gidonb (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]