User talk:GabrielPenn4223

Hello, GabrielPenn4223!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• 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.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, CMD (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Can you please explain what Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Edgenuity/2 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Columbia Mall (Grand Forks)/1 were meant to achieve? Are you seriously suggesting that you somehow didn't notice that the articles weren't GAs? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, you've done this before: at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Edgenuity/1—the same damn article?! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 19 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]

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! Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 1979 → 08:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• 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.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Okay. I am sorry. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:17, 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 Farm _Talk 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]

I will limit how many GARs I open. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:34, 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]

Oh, sorry. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 05:52, 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]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• 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]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of GabrielPenn4223 -- GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 04:23, 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]

The article Edgenuity you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Edgenuity for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of GabrielPenn4223 -- GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of GabrielPenn4223 -- GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 08:43, 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]

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.

--Blablubbs (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2024 (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).

GabrielPenn4223 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

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).

GabrielPenn4223 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

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.

GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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]

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]

Sorry and I apollogize. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's okay. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:41, 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]

The redirect King Henry died drinking chocolate milk has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 10 § King Henry died drinking chocolate milk until a consensus is reached. GSK (talk • edits) 16:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm LegalSmeagolian. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Winfield Scott (chaplain), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Chuck E. Cheese. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:57, 11 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]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Virtual reality roller coaster, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 21:15, 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]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Chuck E. Cheese. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:57, 13 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]

A tag has been placed on 3333 Beverly Road requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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]

The redirect September 26, 1963 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 12 § September 26, 1963 until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GSK (talk • edits) 05:29, 13 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]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. — kashmīrī ^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. — kashmīrī ^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.

GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Oh my mistake. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 22:35, 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

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support it being deleted. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 09:44, 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

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Oh sorry for the typo in my first edit. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 00:43, 24 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. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GabrielPenn4223. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "SKYDB".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 9 August 2024 (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).

GabrielPenn4223 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked 6 months ago for disruptively editing and jumping into hard-to-do processes while not being extremely experienced. I think i'm eligible for the standard offer because:. I waited six months. I made good contributions to the Simple English Wikipedia (even though I made a few mistakes, but I learned from them). I did not evade the block or sock puppetry. I promise to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, and on every edit, I'm going to take time and think carefully about what I'm doing before I hit "Save.". I commit not to make edits on GA, AFD, RFD, RM, and any complicated processes until I have a massive understanding of how Wikipedia works, know the rules in and out, and fit the status of an extremely experienced editor. Many editors I know don't do things like Good Article Review because they still don't have enough experience to participate in these areas. I would also support a topic ban on things like GA and any complicated processes. I am going to focus on adding new information to any edit I make. I commit not to make edits way too fast, because that's what caused the trouble on my talk page. I apologize for what I did in the past and guarantee that it will not be repeated again. Any possible disruption I could cause in the future will be resolved by taking time and thinking carefully about what I'm doing before I hit "Save". GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's a sad truth of Wikipedia that not everyone who wants to edit this project is able to do so productively. Your edits at simple.wiki have been minimal and aren't robust enough to help determine if you've learned how to edit effectively. You say that you're going to concentrate on adding new information to "any edit I make", which I assume means to articles, yet when I reviewed your edits to simple where you added content, you didn't always include sources, which is concerning. I'm also concerned by the number of topic bans you expect would be needed to edit productively here. The amount of posts and unnecessary back and forth on this page during your block is yet another concern. The bottom line is that I'm not confident that, on balance, an unblock wouldn't just lead to more volunteer time being eaten up in monitoring your edits. There can be a path forward for you here, but I think you really need to take an extended break (at least a year) from en.wiki, including this talk page, and really make a concerted effort to edit consistently and productively at simple.wiki. I don't doubt your earnestness in wanting to contribute, but I don't think you're abilities match your desire at this time. Please take some time away and prove me wrong. Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:13, 23 August 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.

No CU evidence of block evasion. I can't rule it out as it's a noisy range, but no evidence is good evidence. Note though that GabrielPenn4223 agreed to wait 6 months from 23 March 2024. That would be 23 September 2024. It's unclear to me if they qualify for WP:SO at this time. I'll leave that to the reviewing admin. --Yamla (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clear a bit of confusion: I said i'd wait six months, exactly after I was blocked from February 13, 2024. If this gets declined and an admin has any questions, I will post another one to clear up the confusion. If I do get unblocked, I'd support a WP:TOPICBAN on Good Article Review, Article Deletion Request, Move Request, Redirect Discussion Request and many complicated proccesses. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]