User talk:Emily19911991

This is Emily19911991's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Darren Nesbit (July 7)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Darren Nesbit and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Darren Nesbit, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emily19911991! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just want you to know[edit]

That I pulled up this diff after seeing the edit summary on my watchlist and thinking I was going to be reverting some inexpert screed in article space, but then when I looked at the changes and your source, I laughed out loud.

I'm gonna warn you now, though: Some people are going to get real offended by that. I hope you enjoy schadenfreude as much as I do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MPants at work: One's feelings are irrelevant. Several studies have shown that belief in conspiracy theories is linked to low intelligence and lack of thinking. It's not exactly something new to people, if anything, it is obvious.--Emily19911991 (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and in case it isn't clear, I do support your addition.

I'm just pointing out that it's very likely that this will kick off a nice, vociferous round of complaints about WP's bias and how stupid all us skeptics are for not believing that Bill Gates wants to microchip up to wipe out the human race because he's a Zeta Reticulan bent on world domination, and only the Men in Black in their black helicopters can stop him (after they're done raiding friendly foreign powers to collect evidence that Hillary Clinton is a devil worshipper). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MPants at work: No revert has been made so far. Most people know that conspiracy theorists are nutjobs.--Emily19911991 (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Emily19911991, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Secretlondon (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Elvis Presley. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bluesatellite (talk) 10:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC) @Bluesatellite: Instead of posting this claptrap on my talk page, why don’t you actually engage in a discussion on the talk page? You don’t get to express a false analogy and opinions on a talk page which are irrelevant. A talk page is meant to discuss and post resolve sources backing up claims. I have backed up with reliable sources about the information that has been included in the article for years and which you think that you can magically remove without any real justification.--Emily19911991 (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Emily19911991 reported by User:Aoi (Result: ). Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoi: So let me get this straight… a user can remove information without any justification other than his opinion and then when it is revered it is okay for him to continue to revert but the person who restored the information gets reported? How does that work exactly?--Emily19911991 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021[edit]

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. Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]