User talk:PerspicazHistorian

Unblock Request

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)

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)

---

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.

Please Unblock Me

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). Later on I got blocked again for sockpuppetry (which I did not do, I don't even know who @TheRajputGuy or @Vinayvinyill is.) *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. Many 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. *Admins please recheck it as it is a mistake, I myself have helped block socks many times, I would never indulge in anything like that. TheRajputGuy MIGHT be a sock but that's NOT ME, I never made any sockpuppet. *I have been accidently blocked previously too [1] 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.

Decline reason:

 Highly likely to TheRajputGuy. Yamla (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

I also see you are  Confirmed to a vanished user. I'll go and unvanish that account now, given you violated the terms. --Yamla (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Yamla, I don't know what you are talking about, please discuss it. That's a mistake.PPicazHist (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not TheRajputGuy

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:

I am not a sock of @TheRajputGuy. I don't know from where he came and everyone is thinking him to be me. I have always been a bold person and was active in talk pages, I don't need a sock to contribute here. I am blocked and still will not be making a sock, I don't wanna loose this account. Please unblock me. PPicazHist (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you:
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

PPicazHist (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Izno please look into it. PPicazHist (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

There's no point in tagging Izno here. He already looked into the technical evidence of your account and confirmed a "likely" connection between you and RajputGuy. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

You need to read WP:GAB. With respect of the other accounts accusation - well it depends on what the truth is. If the truth is that TheRajputGuy and Shivkumar appa devane are you, then you need to accept that you have been caught, and admins now know the truth. Go and make productive edits on Marathi-language Wikipedia for six months. This will be useful in three ways: (i) you will do something of value, (ii) you will improve your Wikipedia skills, and (iii) your activities will generate evidence that you are worth unblocking. Then look at WP:Standard Offer. Make sure that you do not make any edits on your talk page during the six-month break.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

1) @Significa liberdade I don't know who these TheRajputGuy, Vinayvinyill and Shivkumar appa devane are, I never made a sock account.

2) Okay @Toddy1, i will try to not make any edits for 6 months as per WP:Standard Offer. PPicazHist (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)