User talk:ThatChemist25

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

ThatChemist25 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I have just releaizesd that I am banned for some reason, but this seems odd; I have only made one edit, correcting outdated info on Halogen. I think there may be some IP conflicts, if this is the case could I get this ban lifted? I know these may allow bad actors in, but I think that this IP ban is rather old. Thank You! IP: 67.240.185.115 ThatChemist25 (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I have granted you WP:IPBE for ten days. Your edits during this time should give us enough information to determine if you qualify for an extension of IPBE once those ten days are up. You are free to make a new request for an extension in ten days and we'll re-review your edit history at that time. Happy editing! Yamla (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

67.240.185.11 is not blocked. If you've been using a proxy or VPN, note that you must wait a full 24 hours after disabling it, in order for the block to clear. --Yamla (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC) @Yamla:, updated[reply]

GA review of Arithmetic

Hello ThatChemist25 and thanks a lot for taking the time to do the GA review of Arithmetic! In it's current form, the review states that the article passes every criterion but it does not explain how you came to that conclusion. This might make it difficult for other editors to understand why the article fulfills these criteria. It would be helpful if you could add a short text to describe how these criteria were checked. For example, in regard to the first criterion, you could explain in what sense it is "reasonably well written" by describing how your reading experience was in terms of style, grammar, and understandability. In regard to the sources, it would be good to add a short spot-check by picking a few claims in the article and assessing whether the references given in the article support them (see the first point at WP:GAN/I#R3). Phlsph7 (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

will do ThatChemist25 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably take it a step further and say you probably shouldn't be doing GA reviews yet. It generally takes a while to learn Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. And you have almost zero edits outside of editing your own talk page prior to starting one.

On that note, how did you even find yourself doing that so early on in your editing career? Thats not a normal place for a newbie to start off. Thats like going to cooking school and jumping straight into cooking a fancy steak dinner. Sergecross73 msg me 19:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone can cook."-Chef Gusteau ThatChemist25 (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right...but no one starts off as a great cook right off the bat. It takes time to learn and practice with smaller, simpler things. Sergecross73 msg me 01:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.

Yamla (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2023 (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).

ThatChemist25 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not trying to contest the idea that I am a sock, as it would impossible. But, is there any proccess by which some future accounts wouldn't be considered socks. How much time before the "sock" charge is lifted? Thank You! ThatChemist25 (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to go to your original account to request an unblock there RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2023 (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.

No. You personally are blocked. Each account you create will be found and blocked, until such a time as you successfully contest the block on your original account. Additionally, your continued inappropriate edits with each sockpuppet account will strongly count against you. --Yamla (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Yamla mentioned, you would need to go to your original account and request an WP:UNBLOCK that followed WP:STANDARDOFFER. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know password/username to the OG account ThatChemist25 (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not relevant at this time as you are nowhere close to six months with zero edits. --Yamla (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was more than 6th month before this "incident", so I shouldn't be a sockpuppet? ThatChemist25 (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You fundamentally misunderstand WP:SO and WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE if that's what you believe. No, absolutely not, categorically no. You go six months with zero edits, zero block evasion. Then you apply under the terms of WP:SO. At that point, you'll need to address your chronic, inappropriate editing and, frankly, you'll need to propose a ban on GA reviews at the very least. Anyway, I expect to hear nothing more from you at all until at the soonest, 2024-05-01. No more editing. No more talk page edits. Zero. It will already be hard enough for you to be unblocked, given your chronic history of abuse. --Yamla (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bit harsh but see you in 6 month in may (No GA ban will be tolerated, I'll modify it to no nomating articles ) , unless the policy is changed. Can you fix the mistake in Halogen, tenniseeses isn't the newest element found. ThatChemist25 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asking others to edit on your behalf is a violation of WP:SOCK and will count against you in six months. To help you stop, I will protect this page for six months. You have basically no chance of being unblocked without a GA ban. --Yamla (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]