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[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[reply]

It had been open for long and I thought it wasn't bad. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[reply]

I only have the GA review opener and closer. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[reply]

Okay. I am sorry. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've closed the other GAs but kept the highways open. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize for my actions and I clearly will learn from them. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

Okay, apollogize to you also. look at the TeaHouse thing i made. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will limit how many GARs I open. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

Oh, sorry. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When should I only open GANs? if i contribute alot to a article? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[reply]

Okay.

But due to massive controversy, I am going inactive for a while. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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. You may instead email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org with your username and appeal.

---

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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]