User talk:GDX420

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi GDX420. Thank you for your work on Andrew Higgins (veterinarian). Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this page; notability primarily as a book author, with other contributions too! It would be helpful to link this page from others, so that readers can more easily access this page.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I found a couple of places to link from but I'll keep searching.

September 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Royal National Institute of Blind People) for problematic editing and comments per the link to ANI.

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: .  Black Kite (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)}}

Restoration of library access/unblock request

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).

GDX420 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

While I've no interest in editing any of these pages anymore the topic-ban has impacted my library access. I also subsequently received an official threat to life notice after someone doxxed me and said they were going to come to my house and kill me - as if this topic ban wasn't somehow enough to placate them. Furthermore, I was using the library correctly so as far as I am concerned the additional library ban is extra judicial and unjust.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 11:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not address the actual reasons why you were blocked. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:41, 24 January 2025 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

GDX420 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This edit placed me in a position where I could not revert the edits without moving further away from the status quo ante bellum. A plagiarism check identified text that had been directly copied or closely paraphrased from here, here and here. Despite the existence of secondary source material to verify most of September 16th's macro-edit, it replaced reliable secondary sources with primary sources that were not fully independent. The edit summary accompanying this unilateral, full article re-write, “Page rewritten with updated content, and text re Charity Commission reduced in length and moved to new Controversy section”, did not sufficiently reflect the magnitude or scope of the changes. It implied a routine update rather than a full content replacement, making it difficult for other editors, including myself, to assess whether a simple reversion or incremental revision was the best course of action. The brief edit summary accompanying this vast overhaul did not give a rationale for removing sources reliable sources such as the Guardian and The Times from the article. Furthermore, WP:recentism is not a valid reason for source removal or content removal. Therefore, assuming good-faith, I had to remove the copyrighted, promotional and primarily sourced content one piece at a time to avoid losing any usable parts of this macro edit. I participated in efforts to reach a reliably sourced, neutrally worded and Creative Commons-compliant article. However, the fragmented edit history stemming from this macro edit and a disagreement about whether details of the child abuse incidents at this former facility belong to a separate article about the school caused a rift between myself and the article's other editors. I felt that a separate article about the school wasn't necessary because the main article's length and scope didn't reach the point where separate articles for its different sub-topics were required. As per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, sub-articles should only be created if a section becomes too long for the main article to remain navigable. Making Wikipedia's readers visit a separate article for a topic which falls under the main article's umbrella only improves the reader's experience if the main article is so long, that it becomes difficult to navigate. Given the controversy, I should have started a talk page discussion before I merged the pages on June 25th 2024. Initially, no objections to the merger were expressed. The merged pages existed under a presumed consensus until September 18th, when editors reached a new consensus to re-split the article into separate articles for the charity and school. In spite of the regrettable conflict, the article's current revision retains and builds upon the research, sourcing, formatting and new content that I contributed. Therefore, I have no desire to make any extraneous edits to either article because the current iterations of both articles have addressed the issues that User:Largoplazo raised in these talk page requests back in 2020 - see Unsuitable content. While I've no desire to make any further edits to this group of pages, I would appreciate it if someone could restore my library access. I believe my library ban is disproportionate to the impact that this dispute had on the article and Wikipedia and it impacts my ability to verify existing content and research new content. I have taken some valuable lessons from September's incident. In hindsight, I should have stuck to tagging the copyright violations, close paraphrasing, WP:NOT language, and misuse of primary sources as and where these issues occurred. I should not have attempted to restore the article's previous versions after September 16th's Macro edit made the route back to Staus Quo Ante Bellum impassable. When the dialogue became heated I should have stopped editing and engaged in one of my preferred non-Wikipedia-related activities to de-escalate the situation. Since the incident I have made a concerted effort to disengage from volatile situations and I will continue to spread peace and love across the encyclopaedia in the future.𝔓420°𝔓Holla 12:23 am, 29 January 2025, last Wednesday (7 days ago) (UTC−9)

Accept reason:

It's been four days since feedback was requested here and no objections to unblocking have become evident, so an unblock seems in order. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I would appreciate your commenting on this request. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if this duplicates 331dot's query below (the formatting of this page is a little confusing). Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It is one of the better unblock requests I've seen. I'd be inclined to unblock. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

• @Beeblebrox: Thank you. I will abstain from contributing to the previously affected article. I may seek a consensus on a merger between page A and page B but only after considering whether valid [to merge] the pages exist. For now though I am going to enjoy the library and Wikipedia's other 60,000 or so pages.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 12:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Threat

You should forward the threat to the Trust and Safety people at cawikimedia.org -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I did but I didn't hear anything back. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 13:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Animal Health Trust, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• Black Kite How would you feel about making this just a formal topic ban instead of a parblock? 331dot (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• GDX, do you agree to this being a topic ban instead? 331dot (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Joshua Temple (entertainer) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Joshua Temple (entertainer). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ednabrenze (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

About Lighthill Music

Hello, I noticed ur nomination here. Please check [1], [2] and [3]

All there are multiple source that was not added to the article, a band was launched two years ago doesn’t mean it’s not notable, no law like that, and all articles are secondary reliable source on multiple notable source per WP:NGRS, please there are other source I could find, I’ll like you to withdraw your nomination as all this sum up to meet WP:GNG. Gratefulking (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I will like to add that this band was formed by 2023, here is its affiliation on this citation, maybe this was when it became active, I can see it existed since 2021 and has been a gospel crew.

“*

Gratefulking (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this at the AfD 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 19:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Recent AFD behavior

I am going to report you the next time you nominate an article for deletion without reviewing the WP:BEFORE and WP:CONRED policies. Most of your nominations have been a waste of time. You've nominated the Munachi Abii, TurnTable, Victor Thompson and Adeoye Aribasoye articles, all of which are notable. If you continue this behavior, I am going to report you to administrators.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi User:Versace1608 if you believe that asking difficult questions about how editors have established notability through sources that we wouldn't typically deem perennially reliable is something that you need to escalate them I implore you to do so. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 00:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

This was a courtesy note. Some of your nominations have been a waste of time and its quite obvious you didn't conduct a Google search before nominating those articles. It's also obvious you aren't reading the criterion outlined in WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NACTOR and WP:NPOL. You have also chosen to vote two times in the same AFD. You did this here and here.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

How does one vote at an AfD? 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 00:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Nobody is forcing you...

Hi @GDX420, please before you nominate an article for deletion, please research very well about the article and see related Wikipedia guidelines for notability. If you continue, we would take it that you want the community's waste of time and could summon a block. You have been blocked before and you wouldn't want that to repeat itself. To help others and yourself, please add "withdraw" to the AFD pages that you nominated. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you lobbying/canvassing me, mate? 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 09:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits and associating with undeclated paid editing.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC) 22:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• I have blocked you for falsifying references at AfD using AI (it appears to extend to your articles too, unless you mucked up three of the four URLS at Y v A Healthcare NHS Trust & The HFEA & Ors (2018)) and your apparent connections with undeclared paid editing. You are either Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pug of the day, or otherwise associated with them/working for the same clients. If you are not, can you at least explain your creation of Amy Anzel? (Checkusers have access to more info on CUwiki). Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

If being utterly besotted with the article's subject constitutes a COI then yes, I am guilty. I think Amy Anzel is the most beautiful woman on the planet and starting Wikipedia's entry about her was the most thrilling experience I have ever had. I am aware that my feelings towards the article's subject may have skewed my sense of objectivity in regards to notability. But we're going back about four and a half years when I was a young, naive editor full of gusto. Encyclopaedic writing isn't a perfect science, it's a steep learning curve and I'm always refining my craft. I understand that some notability issues have persisted but the various PRODs and AfD nominations never seem to go anywhere. The article has suffered from paid editing but whether AfD or the COIN is the right way to address the issue is a matter for the community to decide.

As for being artificially intelligent I assure you my intelligence is genuine. Lack of sleep caused me to screw up and fatigue is a human trait.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 19:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Amy Anzel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amy Anzel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Anzel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)