User talk:Gale5050

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Gale5050! Thank you for your contributions. I am Dmehus and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Doug Mehus T·C 23:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So,on Wikipedia,what do protections do for pages? Gale5050 (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suppressed edits[edit]

Hi, Gale5050, I have unfortunately had to suppress some of your edits because they reveal too much personally identifiable information about you. We have a policy of protecting editors' safety by hiding such information if they share it. I'm really sorry about having to suppress your edits, and I know it's annoying, but it's for the best. Please don't re-add the information. For some useful information on privacy and safety, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion. Thanks, and sorry for messing about with your pages! PhilKnight (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Power of two[edit]

I don't recall what the first Mersenne non-prime is, but they do exist. Your edit was not exactly vandalism, but factually incorrect and (more important on Wikipedia) not in a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That would be 2047 (p=11; div by 23) per (sequence A001348 in the OEIS) but not (sequence A000668 in the OEIS).

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2020 (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).

Gale5050 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think I should be unblocked as my edits are helpful, but I do sometimes add in misinformation by mistake Gale5050 (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you lack sufficient competence to judge between true information and misinformation, I'm afraid this is the end of the line for you. Yamla (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2020 (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.

By using Wikipedia as a source somtimes, I use misinformation by mistake. Bbb23 probably just notices the bad and blocks me. Gale5050 (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's another instance of you being mistaken. You need to never add misinformation.Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to never use Wikipedia as a source. See WP:RS. --Yamla (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I should always fact check, right? If you add a section, and let me add information, and then review it, and then check if it is page length and has ZERO misinformation, can I please be unblocked? Gale5050 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

template:2nd chance may be an option for you. I'd be willing to argue in favour of an unblock if you followed the instructions there. Note that you need a distinctly non-trivial change and you need to find reliable sources. You'd have to follow the instructions exactly, though. I want to be clear, just adding accurate information would not be sufficient. You need significant, well-researched and well cited changes. --Yamla (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, is there a due date though? It might take me a couple of weeks or even months, so....also how do I cite a source again? Do I just use the link? But yeah, give me a chance. Gale5050 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no due date. A day, a week, a month, a year, whenever. It's your responsibility to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and methods of citing information before you go through this process. WP:CITE covers this. --Yamla (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will have it done by June 1,2020, and I will do everything you told me, but where can I put it? On a new section here, on the template-like, where, I need to know Gale5050 (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: this information has already been provided to you. --Yamla (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Gale5050 (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check template:2nd chance. Please note: this is an opportunity for you to demonstrate you have sufficient competence to be unblocked and to edit Wikipedia. If you are unable to correctly follow the instructions you've been given, you are failing to demonstrate this. --Yamla (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. Sorry, I was confused. I will probably start tomorrow and end in May ‘20, so please be patient and I will update this every so often. Gale5050 (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators. First, I believe Gale5050 is a troll. Some of their edits make that obvious + the obsession with the protection policy. Second, they edited significantly and abusively while logged out.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23, what do you mean? Also, I did not know I was editing abusevly, so please give me a 2nd chance. Gale5050 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that pretty much ends the matter. I withdraw my offer of support, regardless of whether or not you pursue the 2nd chance. I'm done here. --Yamla (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gale5050, what other accounts have you used before this one?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 29191[edit]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Gale5050 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #29191 was submitted on 2020-02-27 20:59:44. This review is now closed.

Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2020 (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).

Gale5050 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am very sorry but I can change!I am very sorry for my lack of building, but give me a 2nd chance! I promise template: 2nd chance will work, and also, I am not a troll, why would Bbb23 ever think it? can someone review this unblock request? i promise I will never add purely trivial changes again. Gale5050 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been told how you can exercise a second chance- but there are other issues here, including your use of other accounts and general competence. I don't see a pathway to you being unblocked outside of the standard offer. I must decline your request. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2020 (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 is now a CU block.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does CU mean Gale5050 (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser. Read your block message. Note you are not eligible for unblock consideration here (or on the IP address you just used) and will likely lose talk page access unless you use your access solely for unblock consideration. --Yamla (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2020 (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).

Gale5050 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Guys, so the reason I had 2 accounts back in April 2019 was so that Andrew5 could be for my phone and Guttmana9 for my Chromebook. It was fine but I was blocked. So, that is what you did not know. So can I please have the 2nd chance? Also I lost my password to Andrew5, but now you know my side of the story. Can you please unblock me? Gale5050 (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This looks like long term trolling to me; if if it were not, this doesn't address any of the editing issues. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:19, 6 March 2020 (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.

Yeah, I think it is valid. Gale5050 (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC) it would not let me post unless I did this[reply]

TPA has been revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 29438[edit]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Gale5050 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #29438 was submitted on 2020-03-13 01:56:36. This review is now closed.

--Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 02:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 29450[edit]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Gale5050 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #29450 was submitted on 2020-03-13 19:27:23. This review is now closed.

--Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 22:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 21:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Email from Gale5050[edit]

Gale5050 has emailed me and asked me to add this to their talk:

I am not a sockpuppet rather a meatpuppet. Please carry this over to my enwiki talk page. I requested unlock to stewards as well with more detail.

This email was sent by Gale5050 to Berrely by the "Email this user" function at Uncyclopedia. If you reply to this email, your email will be sent directly to the original sender, revealing your email address to them.

I have no idea why the contacted me, but they asked if I place it on their talk. If you are reading this, please use the OTRS system, instead of emailing users to bypass revoked TPA. — Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a followup:

I meant to word it so I am not HT495, but I got them to be a meatpuppet of me.

— Yours, Berrely (🎅 Ho ho ho! 🎄) • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Berrely: Meatpuppet or sockpuppet, don’t trust them at all, as they have a long history of faking and lying. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 18:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyeraa, even on Uncyclopedia! JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 18:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]