Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

See the report on AE filed against you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PerspicazHistorian Dympies (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even edit talk pages? PPicazHist (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your own user talk page is the only page you can edit, and while you're blocked you may only use it to discuss what you need to do to become unblocked. Using it for anything else will likely result in you losing access to it. Please note that creating another account is wp:sockpuppetry to evade a block, is highly likely to be detected, and is very difficult to come back from. Valereee (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, What should I do to get unblocked? I was trying to do things in talk pages in order to gain access to article place and here i am blocked even from talk pages without even a discussion. PPicazHist (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I started a discussion, I am blocked for it? We should always discuss things. PPicazHist (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I myself have helped blocking many socks, will not indulge in such things. I did not even try to edit article space when I was blocked and was just editing on talk pages. I want to be unblocked. PPicazHist (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's also funny how @TheRajputGuy is targeted here. He might not even know he will be blocked without a discussion in near future just because he supported a move that some people don't agree with. PPicazHist (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The block notice explains how to request unblock. The section above it links to the AE discussion that brought Guerillero here. Valereee (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Valereee, I have added an unblock request. Please consider it. PPicazHist (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No admin is going to unblock in response to that request. You clearly didn't even bother to read the advice at the guide to appealing blocks link. Valereee (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, I did read it, but wanted to keep it short. Please check my recent edit to it. Is it okay now? PPicazHist (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It will not get you unblocked.

In an unblock request, you have to explain in your own words:

• What you did that got you blocked.
• What you will do differently in the future if you get unblocked.

Remember, the purpose of blocks is not to punish you. It is to prevent you doing the things that got you blocked. There is a subtle difference.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: have you thought of reading Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#PerspicazHistorian?-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: have you ever made productive edits? If yes, provide evidence. If the answer is yes, but not since 9 January, explain why?-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Toddy1, It feels nice to communicate with you again. @Toddy1@Valereee Can you please check my modifications to unblock request. Is it okay now? PPicazHist (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the two hints. And read WP:GAB. And take your time. I once heard a talk by a man called Jewell. He said that what he does is to write what he wants to say, but not send it. He then reads it again the next day, and usually ends up rewriting it. Do it the Jewell-way.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing that Taylor & Francis is unreliable is not a breach of Wikipedia policy. But it is alarming that an editor would say such a thing. You need to work out (a) why you wrote it, and (b) why it was wrong. Then you need to figure out what you can do to stop making that kind of statement in the future.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please reconsider my block—I am committed to making positive contributions.

• What I did that got me blocked: I tried to rename a article title that's disputed and sometimes also engaged in edit wars (many times they turned out to be sockpuppets)
• What I will do differently in the future if I get unblocked: I understand I was blocked for being "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia," but I genuinely wish to contribute constructively. If any of my edits were disruptive, I apologize and am willing to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines. I will always discuss on a talk page before reverting anyone's edit and will not indulge in edit wars. I understand that my edits, including calling Taylor & Francis unreliable, making comments about living persons, using talk pages improperly, and engaging in whataboutism, were seen as violations of Wikipedia’s policies.

I acknowledge these issues and will not repeat them. I am committed to following Wikipedia’s guidelines and contributing constructively. I request reconsideration of my block. Thank you.

PPicazHist (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"If any of my edits were disruptive....." tells me that you don't see how you were disruptive. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2025 (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.

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]