Never mind, although I'm involved with this "editor", as having reverted one edit which was not obvious vandalism (although it may have been subtle vandalism), ...
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
I am not certain that the edits were intended to damage Wikipedia, only that they clearly did damage Wikipedia. I may not be competent to distinguish vandalism from severe and total incompetence. But the result should be the same, an indefinite block until the editor expresses willingness and indicates ability to make constructive edits. — Arthur Rubin(talk)13:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Faizan. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of the primes because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Faizan 11:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of the primes, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. So far, exactly two of your article-space edits has been other than vandalism, and one of those was an unsourced improvement to an equation. I don't know whether the improved equation is correct, but I did revert it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
