User talk:Msikhan1997

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

July 2025

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for ignoring all comments from other editors and refusing to engage with them, reverting with no discussion, calling everything vandalism..
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 ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 16:47, 20 July 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).

Msikhan1997 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not called everything vandalism, I have only done so when it was clearly vandalism. There has been one user who reverts simply for the sake of it and believes she is right about everything, engaging in edit-warring all the time with different users. I just happened to be one who got caught up in that and then she went for me, which is just horrible. And I certainly have not ignored all comments from other users, that is simply not true. I have always added things back in providing sources when they were taken away or reverted for not having a source. I'm here to build an encyclopedia. The user who continues to report me and other users, clearly is not! And I have not reverted everything, that is simply not true either. It's the other user who reverts everything and when she does so, she even introduces mistakes which I had eliminated, so she's not even checking what she's reverting and that is what goes against policy, not what I'm doing. You need to review her behaviour urgently as she has had a lot of problems with other users and if you review my edit history, you'll see that I'm genuinely contributing, whereas the reporting user Gerda Arendt, clearly is not. Msikhan1997 (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Accusing people of vandalism constitutes sanctionable personal attacks. Content disputes are not WP:VANDALISM. Unblock requests must consider WP:NOTTHEM. You've not said a word here that will possibly get you unblocked; rather the opposite. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:38, 20 July 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.

"I have not called everything vandalism, I have only done so when it was clearly vandalism." – Not true.
You made an unsourced addition (with a {{cn}} tag) to Anna Ornstein [1]. I reverted this addition as "Unsourced." [2] and left a warning on your talk page against making unsupported edits [3]. You removed the warning with a summary of "rvv" [4], and re-added the content (with a source this time!) with an edit summary of "rvv" [5]. Seeing this I left a different warning cautioning against the use of misleading edit summaries, and explained what "rvv" meant in case you didn't know [6]. You reverted that warning with a summary of "rvv" too [7].
That is my own personal experience, a brief review of your contribution history reveals this is not an uncommon problem: [8][9][10][11][12] are all from the 20th alone.
Additionally, you often edit warred to preserve your preferred additions against WP:ONUS at:
This is a small sampling, frequently your reverts assert that others edits are vandalism and that they, not you, are edit warring.
As a final issue you refuse to engage with other editors concerns in a productive manner, which is immediately apparent from your talk page history alone. The above request is likely to be denied per WP:NOTTHEM, but any future requests should address the issues presented here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]