User talk:Essie the Great

Essie the Great, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Essie the Great! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Henry Neale II has been accepted

John Henry Neale II, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Essie Wick Rowland

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Essie Wick Rowland, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kleuske (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Request

Can you please use the sandbox to create new articles? You'll find it at User:Essie the Great/sandbox. Creating duplicates with a different name is easily mistaken for vandalism, especially when the title resembles the username as in Essie Wick Rowland and Essie the Great. Kleuske (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Janet Lee Bouvier does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. I reverted your edit because you didn't explain it in an edit summary and, as far as I could determine, the categories you deleted appeared to be correct and appropriate. If you think your edit was correct please provide an explanation and sources for the changes. Thank you. Arxiloxos (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

October 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 9 (Lil' Kim album); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hello, I wanted to let you know that I've removed your third opinion request. Per the third opinion page, Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. As far as I can tell, the issue hasn't been discussed on the article's talk page at all. I encourage you to start a discussion on the article's talk page about the disputed content. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 12:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

March 2020

Hello, I'm C.Fred. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Nicki Minaj, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The information you're adding is not supported by the sources cited in the paragraph. —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello, I'm Pickersgill-Cunliffe. I noticed that you recently removed content from Big Foot (Nicki Minaj song) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of a page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Big Foot (Nicki Minaj song), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Big Foot (Nicki Minaj song), you may be blocked from editing. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Big Foot (Nicki Minaj song). Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent further vandalism, as you did at Big_Foot_(Nicki_Minaj_song).

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell - the article that was in place was written with COMPLETE and UTTER subjectivity and speculation. Wikipedia, a foundation I donate to and support, stands for objective truth and standards. The article had spun a narrative devoid of citation or evidence. It was clear that a bias was present in the writing and depiction of the content. I was trying to not only protect the piece but also protect the integrity of Wikipedia. I wrote an adequate warning after simply removing the bias from the writing. However, the trolls kept reverting back to uncited and biased content. I had not other choice but to fight off the trolls and cancel the entire content on the page. Let me know what process is adequate for future protection of the integrity of writing for an Wikipedia piece. I meant no harm. I am on your side. Essie the Great (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

You don't get to "cancel" pages. The material you removed was well-sources from several music/entertainment publications. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

There were many sentences that were not sourced and cited. I did not cancel a page - that is a direct mischaracterization of my activity. I simply removed uncited sentences that contained construed bias. The other moderators and editors reverted this content back, instead of reviewing the uncited sentences and removed them. There is not room for subjectivities and speculation on this platform. Unless, you feel otherwise? Essie the Great (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, I do not use Wikipedia frequently as a contributor or editor as shown by my recent spate of activity. I made a mistake. I didn't know what the process was to stop trolling edits from approving sentences that are unsourced and uncited. I'm happy to learn this process and comply.

In fact, in March of 2020, I had my own content removed: " Hello, I'm C.Fred. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Nicki Minaj, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so."

I did not fight this. I accepted it. Why do we allow other editors to proceed without citation, and I'm not allowed to stop these sentences from being published? I again, plead ignorance for how to remove misinformation and bias, so I'm looking to become educated so I may proceed in accordance with policy and in good faith. While my process may be in dispute, I have no doubt the Wikimedia Foundation will find the intent and end-goal squarely in line with Wikipedia's mission. Essie the Great (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue here is that you were warned five times by multiple editors for edit-warring and blanking the article. Please follow the instructions at WP:GAB; you'll need to convince someone that you understand why you were blocked, and also give examples of what edits you would make after being unblocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I will take a look. I never saw the warnings because, as I mentioned, I'm still unfamiliar with Wikipedia's notification system. The email is outdated on this profile (should there be email notifications) and I did not see any other popups. I am owning my mistake and I will follow the instructions to provide a clear line of reasoning. I'm crystal clear on why I was blocked at this point and wish I had known better on how to sound the alarm on bias and misinformation. That was my only ever intention. I will lay out the reasoning shortly. My only lingering thought of confusion is why others are allowed to post sentences without citation with impunity? I would hope those trespassers of objectivity suffer an equal thunder of warnings and blockade. Essie the Great (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)