User talk:GBAlph4
Welcome![edit]
Hello, GBAlph4, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Angel Stadium did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Introduction tutorial
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome. Robvanvee 04:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
June 2021[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Natural (film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Levels (Avicii song), you may be blocked from editing. Lazman321 (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at CN Tower. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Keemstar. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. POLITANVM talk 20:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Keemstar. YouTube and Twitter are not reliable sources. You need to provide some reference to independent sources reporting on this topic. POLITANVM talk 20:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
July 2021[edit]
Hello, I'm Hemiauchenia. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Dream (YouTuber), but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
September 2021[edit]
GBAlph4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wish to be allowed to edit again. I was just having a little fun and got carried away. I post factual information, so please give me a chance. Thank you
Decline reason:
One unblock open at a time please. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
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.
- GBAlph4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- ... (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Block message:
original block message
- Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)
Decline reason: Account is blocked directly. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)GBAlph4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Look sir, I feel that what you have done is just too much for a single little joke that went too far. I just want to be unblocked, ok? I don't want trouble, and I am being honest here. Thank you.
Decline reason:
Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
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.
- Hello GBAlph4, one unblock request at a time please. Your account has been blocked due to extensive and persistent addition of unsourced content, WP:BLP violations, and general vandalism. It appears that you have continued to add unsourced material to Wikipedia articles despite receiving several final warnings. To be very clear, your account was blocked due to persistent disruption and a failure to acknowledge and abide by our policies, not a single isolated incident. If you wish to have this block overturned, you will need to demonstrate an understanding of Wikipedia policy and show examples of how you intend to edit constructively. Any administrator is welcome to overturn this block if they are satisfied with your response. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
GBAlph4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello Wikipedia staff, It has come to your attention that I have been blocked due to repeated violations. I would like to apologize for my actions, as I know why you are all so strict on this policy. Going forward, I will make sure to edit only if I can get confirmed information and to not let my emotions get in the way of how I conduct myself. I will also try and use sources if possible, as some things that do become information are hard to find immediately. Lastly, I will not make disruptive edits that significantly alter any pages, as they can become annoying and possibly defamatory. I hope you take your time to read this message and make a decision. Thank you, and have a nice day.
Decline reason:
You were told to demonstrate your understanding by showing some examples. You have failed to do so. You also still seem to not understand your obligation to provide sources, no matter how hard it is to do so, or otherwise refrain from editing. Yamla (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
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.
GBAlph4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
OK, some of my edits involving people I don't like in a given moment can be disruptive. I often like to call them evil and all kinds of names that might be a little excessive. I was mad at Billy Mitchell and decided to replace one of the words with cheater. I also mentioned a controversy involving Keemstar that wasn't his fault. I also had a habit of explaining that certain songs were used in sports without sourcing them. I understand my obligation to source everything, as it prevents people from just believing information they see without something to back up the claim. Please take a chance and let me know what will happen.
Decline reason:
Part 1 of 2; see next unblock request ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
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.
To the next reviewing admin, time to revoke talk page access. This is a clear case of WP:IDHT. This user continues to refuse to give examples of how they'd edit constructively and are either trolling or can't understand simple directions. --Yamla (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
GBAlph4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
For the record, I am not trolling, I am trying to explain my mistakes. Alright, I will explain how I will be constructive in the future. For one, I will only edit whenever information is confirmed or when I can provide a source that is reputable and reliable. I edited the Luigi page to say Charlie Day got the role in the new movie, and when I can edit again, I will put a source to back up the statement. I will refrain from editing pages on subjects or people caught up in situations that I am following in an opinionated way and will try to provide updates that are presented in a objective, unbiased way. Some people like Bill Magness, Billy Mitchell, and Dream were the targets of my vandalism by emotions, and I will not touch their pages unless any relevant, objective and sourced information comes out. I will also try to help remove vandalism and request locks if needed, such as Trevor Bauer's page, where there were people being disruptive and it got annoying quickly. Lastly, I will not dwell on past topics that are understood, as with my mistake on the Keemstar page when I mentioned a controversy the staff deemed was not caused by him. If I have any issues on any subject with another editor, I will bring it up on the talk page of the editor that removes my contributions instead of continuously disrupting the site. I understand the importance of factual information, as misinformation can spread quickly and lead to disastrous consequences. I understand that you want me to explain myself, but I have given you certain examples of my mistakes on the site. Just please read this and understand what I am trying to say.
Decline reason:
Thanks for having taken the time to describe what has happened, and how you'd like to continue editing.
You propose to continue editing biographies, but in a positive way. However, during the three months of your activity on Wikipedia, your focus on biographical articles led to the current situation, starting with the creation of a citation-less draft at Draft:Austin McBroom, continuing with original research in the Keemstar article, edits to the Dream (YouTuber) article that had to be deleted from the history, an unsourced claim in the Fred Armisen article, and the clearly non-neutral edit to the lead section of Billy Mitchell (gamer). It is thus extremely unlikely that you will be unblocked to continue editing biographies.
Before creating another unblock request, please:
- Wait at least three months; you're currently not ready.
- Take the time to review the following four central policies: The verifiability policy, the biographies of living persons policy, the policy against original research and the policy about maintaining a neutral point of view. Do not click any links in them for now; especially ignore any pages labelled "essay" or "explanatory supplement". Please focus on these four pages, and if you do read others, please make sure they're labelled "Policy" or "Guideline" with a green or blue checkmark. While you're of course not required to memorize their content word by word, they all have important sections that you would overlook if you just skim them too quickly. For example, after the three months, you should be able to explain the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources, and you should be able to say which of the three are preferred by Wikipedia. For most editors, large parts of these policies are self-explanatory, thus boring to read and often rather skimmed than thoroughly read. That's fine, because for most editors who have contributed over 100 times over months with an account, vandalizing articles about living persons is a self-explanatory taboo. We're at a point where a block prevents further damage, so there's no need for me to complain or to be upset about this; I'll just describe the current situation: You have sadly not been one of them. This is the difference that justifies asking you to read these policies in detail during a three-month-long pause before continuing to edit Wikipedia.
After the three months, please create another unblock request that contains:
- the text
{{ping|ToBeFree}} ~~~~at its end. This will notify me about your new request. - at least five specific examples for improvements – no matter how small, typography fixes are fine – you'd like to make in non-biographical articles as soon as you're unblocked. This proves that the block currently prevents helpful contributions, so that removing the block will improve the encyclopedia.
- a short statement that Wikipedia generally prefers primary sources, or that Wikipedia generally prefers secondary sources, or that Wikipedia generally prefers tertiary sources, and which of the four pages contains this information in detail.
- Optionally, a voluntary (but then strictly binding) agreement to a topic ban from biographies of living and recently deceased persons, for a duration of three further months after the unblock, automatically expiring afterwards.
Genuinely looking forward to a good new start in the new year. See you then and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
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.
Concern regarding Draft:Austin McBroom[edit]
Hello, GBAlph4. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Austin McBroom, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Austin McBroom[edit]
Hello, GBAlph4. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Austin McBroom".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
GBAlph4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It has been more than three months. I have learned not to vandalize the site. Give me another chance. GBAlph4 (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were asked to do a lot more than simply declare you were ready above. If you are specifically declining to do as requested, please say so, though this will count against you in any future request. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
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.
GBAlph4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have waited more than three months and have read all of the policies on why sources are important and why we can't just use "original research" or gossip. I also understand that neutrality is important, so as to not create controversy. For sources, we must provide quotes, and all necessary citations from reliable and published sources. Primary sources come from the event directly, secondary sources come from those studying the event, and tertiary sources are self published. Wikipedia always wants primary sources since they are accurate and neutral. Please send this to Yamaguchi. GBAlph4 (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have not bothered to follow the instructions you are given. You were told that, earlier today, and ignored that, too. Either you lack the ability to understand what you are told or you refuse to listen to what you are told. Either way, enough. I'm going to lock down access to this page for six months. Once that time is up, maybe you will have taken specific steps to ensure you are able to understand what you are told here and will follow the instructions you've already been given. That will almost certainly be your very, very last chance here, so make it count. Yamla (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
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.
Email access revoked[edit]
You yet again failed to follow instructions. I have revoked your email access and restarted the six month timer here before you can edit this page. Be warned, if you make the same sort of request once that six month timer expires, it will be declined and you will likely permanently lose access to this talk page. --Yamla (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)