User talk:GabrielPenn4223/archive1

Welcome!
  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)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Queen Mary 2/1
Hi GabrielPenn, can you explain the closure of 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)


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

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)

What is going on?
Can you please explain what Good article reassessment/Edgenuity/2 and 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)
 * Hang on, you've done this before: at Good article reassessment/Edgenuity/1—the same damn article?! AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I only have the GA review opener and closer. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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

January 2024
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. 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)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * Okay. I am sorry. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've closed the other GAs but kept the highways open. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my actions and I clearly will learn from them. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

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)


 * Okay, apollogize to you also. look at the TeaHouse thing i made. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will limit how many GARs I open. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oh, sorry. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When should I only open GANs? if i contribute alot to a article? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)

Please stop your disruptive editing. 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)
 * 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.


 * Okay.
 * But due to massive controversy, I am going inactive for a while. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Your GA nomination of 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001)
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)


 * 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)

Your GA nomination of Edgenuity
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)

Your GA nomination of 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001)
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)