Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Queen Mary 2/1
Hi GabrielPenn, can you explain the closure of
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Queen Mary 2/1? I'm not seeing how it is a summary of the discussion, especially as I did point out a couple of items to be fixed.
CMD (
talk) 13:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It had been open for long and I thought it wasn't bad.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 01:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Talk:World Trade Center (1973–2001)
Hi. I closed your test. If you'd like to experiment, you can use
WP:SANDBOX -
Station1 (
talk) 06:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I know they weren't GAs, and i tried to make Edgenuity a GA nominee, and I want to peer review unimproved old articles, like GA resassesments do. My bad!
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 02:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I only have the GA review opener and closer.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 02:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
Hello! GabrielPenn4223,
you are invited to the
Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! LizRead!Talk! 02:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Michigan highway GARs
There are now three of these reassessments open, two of which you have started. I would ask that you do not initiate another, and I would further ask that you respond to the comments on the first that you started. Thank you. Imzadi 1979Â
→ 08:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
January 2024
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Your openings of multiple frivolous GARs are now passing the limits of tolerance. Just today, you have nominated six articles, on just two topics, all without looking at the GA criteria. Only on your fifth nomination did you stop to think whether shortness is failing a criterion (HINT: it isn't). I would advise you to slow down and think about your actions before impulsively performing them; otherwise, administrative action is likely to be heading your way.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 11:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I've closed the other GAs but kept the highways open.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 14:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I apologize for my actions and I clearly will learn from them.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 14:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
GabrielPenn, you need to slow down on this. I don't think you quite understand the point of GAR - it's not for minor issues, content disputes, or articles that are not already good articles (like those multiple GARs for Edgenuity). You've opened way too many at a time (8 today that are still open, not including the closed Olympics ones); you can't list too many at once because the hope is to get people to work on these, which can't happen if you swamp the system. You also appear to have missed then notification requirements in the Opening a reassessment instructions at
WP:GAR.
Hog FarmTalk 16:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, apollogize to you also. look at the TeaHouse thing i made.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 16:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Please also do not open GANs, they should normally only be opened by those who have been involved in writing the articles.
CMD (
talk) 05:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
When should I only open GANs? if i contribute alot to a article?
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 06:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I recommend you stop all GAR closing and GAN closing at this time. Reviewing the logs, it doesn't seem like you understand these processes well enough to help out there yet. Don't worry, there's lots of other things you can do to help out on Wikipedia. Here's some articles that need proofreading, for example:
Category:All articles needing copy edit. –
Novem Linguae (
talk) 07:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I've told people to stop talking about GA for now, This has been going on for long.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 07:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at
Nature, you may be
blocked from editing. What are you doing? Refs do not have to be online. Removing a dead ref and replacing it with a cn is not constructive.Meters (
talk) 07:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay.
But due to massive controversy, I am going inactive for a while.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 07:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I strongly suggest you take the advice of
Hog Farm,
Novem Linguae (
talk) and
~~ AirshipJungleman29. Your statement above about going inactive is not supported by the message you left on my talk page this day. You were not involved in that particular GAR. Why have you come to criticise?
Whiteguru (
talk) 08:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I will take all of the advice above. I am just trying to recover from this situation and problem. And yes, I have heard.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 08:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Don't beat yourself up too much over it;
We all make mistakes, and as long as you continue to persist and grow you can still kick some Wiki-butt when it comes to editing.
Panini!•🥪 15:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Surely it's obvious that you can't review your own nomination? Additionally, you appear to have contributed very little to the article, which is 96% the work of Epicgenius. I would strongly suggest, as others have, that you read the
GA instructions to get a better idea of how the process is supposed to work.
KJP1 (
talk) 08:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, GabrielPenn4223. Your question has been answered at the
Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there! Please note that all old questions are
archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by
Nick Moyes (
talk) 12:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC). (You can
remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).reply
January 2024
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.
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).
I did apologize for messing up GARs like a week ago and I did no disruptive edits recently; I never sockpuppeted here.
Decline reason:
Confirmed
WP:LOUTSOCK, the technical evidence is completely clear. You've been doing this well within the past week.
Yamla (
talk) 11:36, 26 January 2024 (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.
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).
I apologize for what I've done last week; I will never do this WP:LOUTSOCK again. I know what I did was wrong; I also messed up GARs. I will promise, as stated, to never do this again. I recommend an unblock or shortening of the block. I've already stopped editing IPs since last week. I understand why I was blocked for, and I will make productive contributions again.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 11:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Decline reason:
I think your best bet for an unblock is to take the
standard offer and re-apply in 6 months time with no sock accounts or logged out editing.
PhilKnight (
talk) 16:19, 29 January 2024 (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.
@
PhilKnight I am not blocked indefinitely, just for two weeks And I can't reply to above comment as replying doesn't work
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 17:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
My mistake. I guess my advice is to sit the block out. The reply function doesn't work that well.
PhilKnight (
talk) 17:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Again, sorry
In hindsight, that was quite avoidable rudeness on my part. In high school, I learned a mnemonic for the
Ideal gas law, which translates into English as "bottle of booze." I never forgot it.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk) 13:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Please do not introduce
links in actual articles to
draft articles, as you did to
SKYDB Awards. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the
Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. -
Arjayay (
talk) 13:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I did not do vandalism, I was clearly trying to fix capitalization
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 21:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, some of your edit was appropriate, but in your first edit you inappropriately changed "ShowBiz" to "Showbiz" when the capital B is part of the company's name, and you inappropriately included "to" inside a company's name. Please be more careful.
Meters (
talk) 21:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I've added a proper source for it, I know the soft opening of Space Center Bremen was December 2003 but unsourced.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 22:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The source does not support the "has received criticism"; your addition was also ungrammatical.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 14:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by
visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. GSK (
talk •
edits) 20:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
An article you recently created,
3333 Beverly Road, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
Bbb23 (
talk) 21:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Draft:Mount Vernon Plaza, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Mount Vernon Plaza and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
Draft:Mount Vernon Plaza during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. GSK (
talk •
edits) 15:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
If you think 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 ~~~~}}. Â
Bbb23 (
talk) 15:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
path from here
I'm sorry things worked out this way, Gabriel. Wikipedia has a learning curve and it's not for everyone. I've had the misfortune of trying to train professional folks in the workplace who cognitively were not able to do the job. They were friendly and they took their work seriously but it became apparent that they could never contribute to the team and they had to be let go. It's painful when that happens and I, personally, empathize. This block is not a punishment for anything you've done or failed to do; rather, it is done to prevent the disruptions you would cause if you continued editing. For this reason, I think you should forget about ever editing here again. By all means, continue to read articles and The Signpost but you should seek a different outlet for your enthusiasm. No one here is mad at you or has personal feelings against you; we just have to sort those editors who can help this encyclopedia. Chris Troutman (
talk) 16:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
"I think you should forget about ever editing here again." huh? I wouldn't go that far necessarily, their contributions to RfD were honestly fine and appreciated. The example RfD that was brought up at ANI was about "september 11th airstrikes", a term that never comes up in the actual article. It was a conversation worth having, I feel, even if I disagreed and !voted "keep". I totally agree that Wikipedia has a learning curve, but it's not an unclimbable mountain either. What I'd recommend is probably a slower build-up into technical areas. Participating in XfD discussions, instead of going straight to nominating them. Writing a well sourced B-class article from scratch, instead of jumping into GA nominations for unrelated pieces. The nomination you made
here was a great and helpful find as an implausible search! I'd love to see more like this, at a smoother pace ^^. I wouldn't have supported a CIR block personally, but I also didn't have the whole picture about the other WP areas that you were dipping into. In any event, I believe you'll be able to contribute positively in the future if you do decide to come back, so hopefully you can take this time to go on break, and consider if/when you'll be ready. I believe in you! Utopes(talk / cont) 00:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't go for CIR indefinite block, either, and hope that they will come back one day with a somewhat more mature approach. Let me note that for the one implausible typo XfD that you mentioned Gabriel created tens of pseudo-typo redirects! (17 variations of
Trainsformres,
Tranisfromers,
Tranisformers,
Trainsfromers,
Traisformers,
Tarnisformers,
Tarinsformers and so on, and many many others
[1]). Essentially, the balance of constructive vs disruptive wasn't really in their favour. As you wrote – if they decided to try small steps first before moving to advanced editing, that would surely give a different perception.
On the other hand, I can't say why but "GabrielPenn4223" feels like a disposible account, esp. when "GabrielPenn" is available. —
kashmÄ«rÄ«Â
TALK 02:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
To be fair, gamer tags tend to have "random" numbers just thrown on the end for good measure :V, I must admit I've also done the same for some non-Wikipedia usernames in the past 😅 (I thought they all had to have some!) Utopes(talk / cont) 07:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi, @
Utopes and @
Kashmiri. I shouldn't have been CIR-indefinitely blocked, per you guys. temporary block would probably be the best option. I would recommend that my block get reviewed. Anyway, would you support a temporary block, unblock or standard offer (6-month wait)? Anyway, I'd support a temporary block the most, but very weak support on an unblock and neutral on standard offer
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 15:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Anyway I am doing a block review on my unblock request.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi @
GabrielPenn4223, I would normally expect a block of around 7-30 days on account of disruptive editing that didn't stop despite several warnings, and another month or two for editing while logged out. Indefinite blocks are normally reserved for accounts that don't display any sort of good faith (vandals, those who don't engage, those who don't accept responsibility, etc.), while you have acknowledged your mistakes. But I'm not an admin, and a reviewing admin may apply a different yardstick. —
kashmÄ«rÄ«Â
TALK 15:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Do you think a 1-4 week block would have made sense instead of a indefinite CIR block, but 1-2 months if I do block evade? As I did some good faith edits.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 16:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Blocks are preventative. You are not blocked because you made an emotional outburst that, after sixty days, you might return to your right mind. You were blocked because you are not competent to edit. You will still, likely, not be competent to edit ten years from now. I made every effort to kindly explain that editing is not for you. I wish you had the humility to take in what I expressed. I am sad to see you here
arguing that you should be unblocked. Please,
drop the stick. Chris Troutman (
talk) 16:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I still want to be a productive user. I don't want to quit. Everyone makes mistakes. Editing can be a hard task at times. While it's true editing is not for everyone, People who have no competence editing to have the potential to make good edits. I am not arguing to be unblocked, but talking on my good behavior to understand why I wouldn't have supported a CIR block myself.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 16:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
You're right. @
Utopes who wrote ""I think you should forget about ever editing here again." huh? I wouldn't go that far necessarily, their contributions to RfD were honestly fine and appreciated. The example RfD that was brought up at ANI was about "september 11th airstrikes", a term that never comes up in the actual article. It was a conversation worth having, I feel, even if I disagreed and !voted "keep". I totally agree that Wikipedia has a learning curve, but it's not an unclimbable mountain either. What I'd recommend is probably a slower build-up into technical areas. Participating in XfD discussions, instead of going straight to nominating them. Writing a well sourced B-class article from scratch, instead of jumping into GA nominations for unrelated pieces. The nomination you made here was a great and helpful find as an implausible search! I'd love to see more like this, at a smoother pace ^^. I wouldn't have supported a CIR block personally, but I also didn't have the whole picture about the other WP areas that you were dipping into. In any event, I believe you'll be able to contribute positively in the future if you do decide to come back, so hopefully you can take this time to go on break, and consider if/when you'll be ready. I believe in you! " I do agree that editing is not for everyone, but people who have problems editing don't always need to quit editing permanently. They can and do have the potential to come back to making productive edits. I am not complaining about being unblocked, but discussing on how my block may've been valid but should've been temporary instead. Wikipedia can be a climbable mountain, as you stated. I would want to be unblocked immediately, but the 6-month rule exists and the unblock is very likely, to be declined. Same with @
Kashmiri also.
I don't want to quit editing forever unlike an user stated. If you do have a different opinion? that's okay. but I would want to take a break for a while.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh, bonus message: I will indeed take the advice of you and others who've given polite advice to me, and I will take a break from editing, but not until I've read the Five Pillars and the major rules around Wikipedia. The actual last message for now is: Thank you everyone. Also I will not submit another block request until atleast six months later.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 17:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
POV: I think my unblock request is likely to be declined, but I think taking the standard offer is probably the best option. Leaving the block out and not editing can be a good option at times, But not everyone has to stop editing because of CIR problems, We all make mistakes, as stated earlier. I'm having a rough time. I will calm myself down.
Users who have CIR problems can have the potential to make good edits again as already stated. Reading the rules will be a good option and will likely solve the problem. Thank you.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 17:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Even users had done advanced editing before doing small steps, A newcomer at the time made the
Edgenuity article back in 2020.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 20:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Maybe is a good idea that If I want to create any technical area nominations in the future, I should read the rules first and then participate in them before starting to nominate things. And also, in my first nominations, post topics' first in their talk pages before nominating (for example: Read the GA rules first, then participate in a GA discussion then nominate one)
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 20:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
This will be my last message for now, but the best bet would to be taking my "CIR standard offer" and reading the Five Pillars and major rules around WP. Thank you.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 17:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
As said on the first newcomers thing:
Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
Oh, here's another thing I will intend as part of slowly building up into technical areas: writing a fairly-sourced A-class article from scratch instead of instantly making article drafts for creation.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 00:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The chances of that happening are zero. You are doing yourself no favours by constantly editing your talk page, just STOP and come back in 6 months.
Theroadislong (
talk) 08:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Unblock
Removed unblock thing as they don't shorten indefinite blocks
Chris Troutman did not say anything about shortening your block. Utopes(talk / cont) 22:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Anyway, do you think that my intentions, if I do get my block shortened, are a good idea? "and not make any GA nominations, AfDs, RfDs, Move requests, or AfCs until I've read all the rules around them. Also if I participated in them first and had already made stuff that fits their criterias and rules."
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 22:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Utopes and @
Kashmiri from the above thread, I think my block could probably be reviewed per the "path from here" thread, but if not,? I will simply wait atleast six months or more to get myself unblocked via a block review, per the standard offer, as they don't shorten indefinite blocks
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 09:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
PhilKnight, back in January, suggested waiting six months with no socks or logged-out editing. Are you absolutely sure you wish to reject this? If you do not wish to reject this, I very strongly recommend removing the above open unblock request. We don't shorten indefinite blocks, that would be pointless, so either your unblock request would be accepted or declined. I'd like to suggest it's almost sure to be declined. But, your call. --
Yamla (
talk) 23:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A tag has been placed on
September 26, 1963 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Another one of many useless redirects (now largely deleted) created by a now-indeffed user from an implausible typo. Note that we don't keep redirects for all possible dates in all possible notations, and it wasn't said why we should make an exception for 26 September 1963 and 7 June 2000
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by
visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request
here. —
kashmÄ«rÄ«Â
TALK 09:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
A tag has been placed on
June 7, 2000 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Another one of many useless redirects (now largely deleted) created by a now-indeffed user from an implausible typo. Note that we don't keep redirects for all possible dates in all possible notations, and it wasn't said why we should make an exception for 26 September 1963 and 7 June 2000
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by
visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request
here. —
kashmÄ«rÄ«Â
TALK 10:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
My suggestion for users who have trouble editing because of CIR but have good intentions (The CIR standard offer)
Here's my CIR Standard Offer. 1. Take a break from editing for 7–30 days, 14, 21, or 30 days (depending on the severity of the disruption). 2. Read the "Five Pillars" and the rules around Wikipedia. 3. I promise you will make constructive edits again. 4. Blocked indefinitely? Wait at least six months.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 16:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Apology to people
I am deeply sorry for the disruption caused by my edits. I am not perfect, as you know. And I will take a break from editing until I've read the Five Pillars and their major rules. I will follow the standard offer (if my unblock request gets declined). I will no longer make any GA nominations, AfDs, RfDs, move requests, or AfCs until I've read all the rules around them, done any of the criteria behind them, and participated. I do have the potential to return.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 17:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Gabriel, to get this out of the way first: I agree that you have the potential to return. I fully believe your intentions are good here, and that's always the right first step. Right now, you're exhibiting the same behaviors that got you blocked in the first place. My biggest advice right now is this: Slow. Down. Disclosure: I am not admin. Nothing I say can or will affect your block/unblock, as that's not something I have any control over. I'm only replying as you've now notified me 7 times about your unblock, which was 7 times more than necessary because I can't do anything here.
A good unblock request really only needs to be made in 1-2 edits. One to request an unblock, and an optional 2nd if the blocking admin has any questions. You've made 32 edits to your talk page across 5 sections asking for unblocks in the last 24 hours, mainly just responding to yourself. It's preferable to
keep it simple, as there's
no rush to make edits.
As multiple users above have mentioned, 6 months is usually a minimum length of time before an indefinite block is reconsidered. If an indefinite block gets converted into a temporary block, that defeats the purpose of the original indefinite block in the first place, which is meant to "block until further notice". Hopefully you understand why that's the case, or else an indef
WP:CIR block may be appropriate if you can't.
Yamla, an admin who's declined one of your previous unblocks, suggested that you remove the unblock request, which you have ignored as the request is still live. Given that this length of time has not been honored and the initial CIR concerns are still present, your request is very likely to be declined. If that happens then you will likely be stuck waiting another 6 months from now before its reconsidered, if people still have the patience by then.
I would encourage you to be methodical and calculated in your responses. Less is more.
Give people a reason to trust you. Your track record of disrupting technical areas is a problem, but can be learned from. Demonstrate growth. Talk about specific things that you will do.
Template:2nd chance. If I were you, I'd stop thinking about returning to GA, AfC, XfD, or any of the technical areas at all until you have a LONG track record of making constructive, uncontroversial, and accepted changes elsewhere.
These are things to take into consideration when people believe you've improved. It's been barely a month since you were indeffed, and frankly, the frantic nature of
User talk:GabrielPenn4223#path from here does not inspire confidence that you're ready for an unblock. If you've read
WP:STANDARD, that should be enough to know to just wait. There's other things to do that aren't editing Wikipedia. There's thousands of topics on
Fandom that can be developed if you're really into wiki-editing, but there's so many things to pass the time outside of that. I wish you best of luck; if you're sure you have the competence to edit Wikipedia, reading and actually following the guides for unblocks is a good first step. Utopes(talk / cont) 20:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay. I will indeed wait atleast 6 months instead and will ensure I will have a good edit history.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 22:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, I do promise that if I do get unblocked in at least six months, I will make constructive edits. As a user, I will not make any technical area nominations until I've had a long history of good edits that are constructive, have a clear understanding of them, have participated in these discussions, have met the criteria for them, and have read all the rules around them. I will also accept advice from people, including your advice to have a slower buildup into technical areas. I will accept that my CIR block did make sense. and will be a productive member of the community. I will learn from my past mistakes, editing, and stuff. I will accept the standard offer and promise to take only small steps from the day I get unblocked. I will also read and follow the guides to be unblocked. I will improve existing articles. I will demonstrate growth, and I will give people a reason to trust me. I will give a methodical, calculated, and clear response, and I will ensure I have the competence to edit Wikipedia. and I will slow down, as you said. I will acknowledge my past mistakes, including my disruptions in technical areas and my edits. I will act maturely. I am sorry for rushing. Thank you., and you're welcome.
GabrielPenn4223 (
talk) 22:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Can't you just stop posting incessant comments on your Talk page? You didn't need to write the last comment at all, because nobody is interested in reading that you made a typo. You didn't need to write the preceding comment either, because your promises are immaterial at this time - they will only have to accompany a 2nd chance request in six months' time. You didn't need to comment on CSD nomination either, as Talk comments are not viewed by deleting admins.
Just follow Utopes's excellent avice and stop flooding Wikipedia with deliberations about your editing. It's neither helpful to anyone nor a proof of maturity, and will only lead to your ability to edit own Talk page being revoked. —
kashmÄ«rÄ«Â
TALK 12:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply