User talk:Emotioness Expression

Welcome!

Hello, Emotioness Expression, 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:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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.

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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Megaman en m (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Please stop adding poorly sourced content. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I did manage to find some richly sources because I find it online but I promise I'll stop. By the way, I remove the unsourced material from the Comparison with Frisson part because after hours of searching, I couldn't find it everywhere. Also, I think you can still keep or remove the additional citations label if the citations is full.

User:Emotioness Expression 12:42 8 October 2019

The subsequent Slate and McGilldaily sources you found meet the guidelines. Most blogs do not, unless it's a blog from a recognized expert, or something along those lines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Presidents of the United States by name

The article List of Presidents of the United States by name has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Mostly unsourced, mostly original research. What doesn't violate these rules, duplicates List of presidents of the United States

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Presidents of the United States by name

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on List of Presidents of the United States by name requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of the United States by name. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

More problems with sources

Here[1] you used a tour company and a copy of our article. We need academic sources. Hwew[2] you used WikiDoc, which List of medical wikis calls "a medical wiki encyclopedia[16] where contributors are not required to have credentials in a biomedical field.". It's very rare for us to use anything with the word "wiki' in it. I haven't yet reverted you here[3] but we don't use mailing lists, and [4] also fails WP:RS. @Ohnoitsjamie: any suggestions how this continuing problem can be avoided? Doug Weller talk

Thanks for that message (critique, maybe?). I hope I learn my lesson from this, which is if there is a reliable source, I'll put it. If it is an unreliable source but acting like it is, I'll not put it because it doesn't cite any sources.

User:Emotioness Expression 5:58 PM (UTC)

Copyright violation

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the American frontier article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement: "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike".

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the Help Desk. You can also leave a message on my talk page. --Yamla (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Advice

I'm not sure why you thought it would be acceptable to cut-and-paste material from elsewhere and use it here. In any case, please read our policy on close paraphrasing, which gives lots of examples of do's and don'ts regarding summarizing material for use in Wikipedia without violating copyrights. Obvious the previously mentioned reliable sources guidelines still apply for selecting the sources. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Joel Berghult (Musician)

Hello, Emotioness Expression. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Joel Berghult".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Backpack Kid

Hello, Emotioness Expression. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Backpack Kid".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Love of My Life (Queen song)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I hope I can learn my lesson from this.

User:Emotioness Expression (talk) 2:47 pm, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Hello, I'm Lard Almighty. I noticed that you recently removed content from Dyatlov Pass incident 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 the 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. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sabahan Malay (May 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Calliopejen1 was: 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:Sabahan Malay 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:Sabahan Malay, 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, 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.

Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Emotioness Expression! 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! Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hello! May I ask if you also operate the username "Angus1986"? Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Why? Emotioness Expression (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate uses and say which legitimate use applies to your case. Legitimate uses do not include making a change using username A,[5] having it be reverted,[6] and then repeating it under username B,[7] as you did at Donald Trump (the specific repeated changes were to "a number of electors" and the removal of the comma following "deduction"). Failure to comply with policy will likely result in sanctions.

In legitimate use cases, the "other" username must be declared on each user page, stating the legitimate use, per the last paragraph in the above-linked section. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasoning. Emotioness Expression (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome. Please say which legitimate use applies to your case, or say which username you will use from this point forward. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Copy of what I posted at User talk:Angus1986, which applies equally here.

Ok, I've looked further into the edit histories of these two usernames that were created six days apart in Sep 2019. There are enough differences that I'm prepared, for now, to believe (1) that the same kinds of errors are occurring because the two editors are very unwisely using the same terrible grammar tool and are equally careless with its use, and (2) that the recent intersection at Donald Trump was merely a remarkable coincidence. My apologies as to the socking accusation; however I will continue to monitor both usernames for these errors until I get tired of doing so or I'm told to stop by an admin. You were causing an unacceptable amount of damage to the encyclopedia through your careless use of that tool; if you have stopped doing that, thank you.

―Mandruss ☎ 07:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Finally, the evidence is there that there are two different editors. I'll keep that as a reminder and I'll continue to edit (in other words, move on) from it. Emotioness Expression (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You did notice, didn't you, that Emotioness Expression didn't directly answer the question? A lack of evidence is not, per se "evidence". — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 16:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@UncleBubba: That was hardly the extent of what I considered evidence.

It did occur to me that if I was asked the question and was innocent, I probably would have given a forthright answer "No." – then followed by a "Why?" if I was curious. I would've had no reason to respond otherwise.

Had they said "No," I would have taken it as a bit of evidence in favor of innocence, and I would have proceeded with digging deeper into edit histories, which I ultimately did anyway.

That is, unless the "No" was accompanied by a lot of hostile get-off-my-page arm-waving about accusations without evidence – "I'm not guilty until you prove I'm guilty!" – something I see more often in the guilty than the innocent regardless of the type of offense. The editor doth protest too much sometimes, methinks. See gaslighting.

Isn't human psychology fun? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I'm sorry I wasn't more clear when I replied. I was referring to Emotioness Expression's statement that "Finally, the evidence is there that there are two different editors". I should have done a better job saying "No, the fact that Mandruss didn't see damning evidence of guilt is not, per se, evidence of innocence." Sorry for the confusion. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@UncleBubba: Oh. Well yeah, short of a checkuser there can be no real evidence per se. I'm as satisfied as I can be without a CU. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Your re-reverts

You have re-reverted both of my reverts at American frontier,[8][9] both without explanation. Most of those changes are indefensibly poor and the rest are unnecessary at best.

Your actions amount to edit warring by my definition (you won't find that behavior described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution), but the community has failed to support me on that. For multiple reasons, I choose not to open discussions on the article talk page seeking a consensus on each of the individual changes, and I know of no other recourse. Therefore I am washing my hands of the issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I hope you don't give up. Cleaning up stuff like this isn't easy, but as the number of bored school kids (and adults) on the planet has increased because of COVID-19, we're seeing a huge rise in the number of people who seem to want to use Wikipedia to practice their English, as a substitute for their Xbox, or God-knows-what else. Your help has been valuable. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 20:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@UncleBubba: I have been through this scenario many times, repeatedly learning and then forgetting that our system, in its attempt to be tolerant and forgiving, is woefully inadequate to protect the encyclopedia from those who exploit that tolerance. It's worth noting that those errors probably would have remained far longer if you hadn't noticed this thread, the article doesn't get enough editor attention for normal processes to work. One of those edits had persisted since 22 August until I happened upon the scene yesterday in my sock investigation. The one block of my career occurred when I exceeded 3RR (by 1) in a situation very much like that. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I understand, and it's frustrating to have to deal with this. The edits you and I reverted here today are, nearly without exception, terrible. If the guy has a shred of maturity, he'll work to improve; if he's a troll, or he's here to play a game, it'll take some time, but he'll be stopped. I'm not going to edit-war with the guy, but I will either get him to stop feeding Wikipedia pages to Grammarly or Scribendi (or whatever he's using) and learn the fine art of collaboration, or I'll report him and let the admins deal with it. I really am wondering, though, if he and Angus know each other... — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 20:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at American frontier, you may be blocked from editing. I looked carefully at the edits you made. You changed quotations from cited publications so they no longer match the cited text, you changed the title of one cited work to something it is not, you changed words so subject and verb number case no longer agree, you changed a verb phrase "set up" (meaning "established") to "setup" (which is a noun form), and many other things. I don't know what you're trying to do, but it doesn't look like you're capable of using your editing tool responsibly, and you're causing a lot of damage to the article. Please stop. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 20:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you using Grammarly?

Hello User:Emotioness Expression, I have reviewed a few of your edits and it looks like only very very few of your edits are actually productive while the majority of the edits are unnecessary. Kindly refrain from doing such edits, I was on your path last week, and now I stopped using that grammar tool. Like the edits, you made by changing "which" to "that" is unnecessary. You might get blocked if you continue your disruptive editing. I now understand why User:Mandruss might have suspected me with you because the edits are very similar to what I was doing using Grammarly(last week). Good luck! Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 10:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mutt Lunker, need you over here. Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 11:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I get it. I can clearly see why Mandruss has suspiciously linked you and me because of similar edits. And yes, without lying to you, I do use Grammarly. I'm not sure when to stop using it but I promise I will stop using it at any time. Emotioness Expression (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

without lying to you as you did here. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "I'm not sure when to stop using it"? Just don't use it to change the already existing correct grammar(i.e. for non-improvement), use it wisely, or if you don't know how to use it, just stop using it. Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 11:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I will. I'll also not change quotes, even though, grammatically speaking, they are wrong. Emotioness Expression (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Grammarly, and its like, are powerful tools but they must be used with considerable care and knowledge, otherwise they can be blunt, highly destructive and cause considerably more damage than good. The damage done by such well-intentioned edits can corrupt articles and resolving this can be a significant drain on the time and effort of fellow editors that could have been utilised more effectively with other tasks. Simply feeding text into it, assuming the suggestions are necessary, appropriate and correct and applying them to the article is a recipe for disaster, as Angus can attest. See User_talk:Angus1986#You_appear_to_be_bluntly_using_a_grammar_tool for their experience. Angus appears to have taken the advice on board and you would be wise to do the same.

Many of the changes these tools suggest are stylistic-only, based on whatever style guide has been chosen for the tool, but there are other entirely valid writing styles which should be respected. Changes to style may in some instances be appropriate to maintain consistency with the rest of that article but, in general, making a style-only change to text which is already stylistically valid is to be avoided. See WP:MOS for policy on style within Wikipedia, WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES regarding the respect of other styles and national varieties of English.

Grammar tools are also prone to making assumptions, based on a misunderstanding of the text, which can lead to suggestions which entirely change the sense of what is being said. To use the tool effectively you must fully understand the intent of the text and not just assume that the tool has got it right. It very often gets it wrong.

If you "get it" and if other editors have been finding significant errors in your use of the tool, which they have, you should stop using it right now, do not hesitate, and concentrate on trying to find areas to work on that are within your abilities to be constructive.

I'm sure your changes were well-intentioned and many may have been positive but if you are also introducing errors, you should stop. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The shorter version, and perhaps more to the point: If you use a tool for any type of edit, you are no less responsible for the results than if you had made the same edits manually. (The same concept applies to the use of various scripts that generate unacceptably poor citations, for example; if you choose to use them, you are expected to fix the problems created by them. Few editors do so.) ―Mandruss ☎ 12:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Although I agree, that is yet another point, supplementary to mine, not some sort of summary of them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Stricken accordingly. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

You appear to be wilfully persisting in the unscrutinised use of Grammarly. Some of those edits were mild improvements, many stylistic-only, some arguably changed the meaning or emphasis in a way perhaps not intended but "variety troupe" to "variety of troupe", good grief? Did you even spot that change let alone check to see if it altered the sense, or indeed even made any sense? It renders the text nonsenscial. You are clearly not capable of using this tool constructively, this has been pointed out to you by several editors, including one recently reformed from the same mistaken course, so it is only reasonable to consider any persistence as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, with the consequences this will bring you. Drop the tool now. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This does similar damage and is very far from a WP:MINOR edit; do not mark it so. Probably the worst example in this edit is changing "a man with facial piercing" to "a man with a facial piercing"; the character has multiple piercings, so the original is correct, you are very wrong. I would auto-revert your changes but this is impossible now since subsequent edits have been made. Reversion of your changes will have to be done manually and as I do not have the time or inclination and you made the mess, please revert your edits in this article, in their entirety. Assuming your other edits are of a similarly damaging nature, please self-revert all edits you have imposed with this tool. The quicker you are, the more likely you will be able to do so easily by simply reverting. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Insertion of comma following "father" in "Fredric Lehne as Benjamin Hallett, Charity's father and Barnum's disapproving father-in-law" changed the number of individuals from one to two, or from one to three, depending on how you parse it. Regardless, it was clearly incorrect. Same thing in the change immediately following that. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Just stopping isn't enough. He must revert all his edits as well. Now, I understand how I acted carelessly. Sorry @Mandruss and @Mutt Lunker Angus¹⁹⁸⁶ TALK 16:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Concur with all of the feedback above. Don't use grammar tools unless you already have mastered grammar. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Hi Emotioness Expression! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at American frontier that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Mention at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Just to let you know that you were mentioned at the AN/I concerning Zackomode (talk · contribs) who appears to have a similar editing method to your own. Esowteric+Talk 09:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

From [10]: Let me clear this up without lying to you: I've never made a second account here, as you speculate. But, perhaps, as you stated, both of us use Grammarly. The reason why I said this is because I'm not the same person. In fact, I've created my account last year before Zackomode joined in (if you look at my edit history or the date I joined). Anyway, I promise I'll stop using Grammarly unless there are grammatical errors (not including quotes). I'll talk to Zackomode about it. Emotioness Expression (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

No, no "unless", please do not use Grammarly under any circumstance. You have amply demonstrated that you have insufficient understanding of what the tool suggests to you to know whether to implement changes or not. Will you please accept what numerous people are telling you? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Zackomode has been confirmed as your sock and indeffed. Here's the SPI link. Esowteric+Talk 19:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned on another page that you had violated the three revert rule using another account. I seem to have been mistaken about the 3RR violation but another admin acted on my comment before I left this notice here. Nonetheless you may not use multiple accounts to perpetuate an edit war or to evade scrutiny of your editing. I have reduced your block to one week from two. Sorry for the confusion. (courtesy ping GeneralNotability) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for the sin I committed

I have been temporarily banned from editing, which causes damage to Wikipedia. I used the ban as a thought about what I have done and also regret the things I have ruined. I wish I could realize it but I didn't realize it. All I want is to change things, not destroy things, which is why we're all here. My edit results are always useful for some articles and I never knew that some edits would misrepresent any picture. I will take personal responsibility for that. I will also apologize to those who watched me, namely, I was wrong about my edits and I apologize for the damage I did. I promise to make a positive contribution and not return to previous behavior. I may never know what my future holds here but I do know one thing: Be possible about your contribution to society. That's it from me.

P.S. I have turned off Grammarly, as promised, although I will turn it on for a specific purpose. If anyone reads this, don't use Grammarly negatively. Use it positively. Emotioness Expression (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome back! I hope you will take a very cautious approach here. It's pretty apparent from your writing (above) that you do not have a good command of English, and I suspect that's the reason you started using Grammarly in the first place. This is a bad idea. If you can't correct English grammar without using Grammarly, don't do it at all. Don't even try.

If you want to contribute to the English Wikipedia, there are plenty of things you can do (or learn to do) that don't involve the finer points of grammar. Or, if you're not a native English speaker, there may be a wikipedia that uses your native language, and you may be able to contribute there.

You said, above, "My edit results are always useful for some articles". I'm guessing you meant to say that you intended your edits to be useful, but that's not what you wrote. If not, I'd argue that many—perhaps most—of your edits were far from useful. Whatever you decide to do, I wish you good luck. If you want to contribute here, PLEASE talk to some more-experienced editors before rushing in. The Teahouse might be a great place for you to find people to talk to; you can find it here: WP:Teahouse. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 11:40, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm having a difficult time to reconcile everything. I apologize for, literally, not knowing that I was causing damage here. Emotioness Expression (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Missing case of McDonald's boys (1986) (September 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Missing case of McDonald's boys (1986) 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:Missing case of McDonald's boys (1986), 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, 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.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Alteration of quotations

Do not change quoted text to how you believe the text should have been written, as you did in United States congressional apportionment. Quotations reflect the actual text of the material being quoted and should not be "corrected" to reflect how a Wikipedia editor would have preferred it to be stated. TJRC (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Hi Emotioness Expression! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Huntington–Hill method that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Emotioness Expression! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Andrew Huang (musician) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Seriously—if there is any doubt, just don't mark the edit "minor". — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 01:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

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. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! In addition, why are you still using Grammarly, after much advice to the contrary? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you STILL using Grammarly?

Hi, I noticed one of your recent edits, to Utterance‎. You changed things like "In voiced ..." -> "invoiced" (etc). Looks like you're STILL misusing a tool like Grammarly, in spite of much advice to avoid it. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I installed Grammarly for Chrome myself, not to use, but to check it out, and the nonsensical change from "in voiced ..." to "invoiced" was indeed one of the suggestions offered to me. Things like this adversely change the meaning of text. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

No. I don't anymore. I've turned it off. This time, it was actually ME who did all of this. Like I've stated before, I'll turn it on for a specific purpose, such as grammatical errors that non-native English speakers made, etc. Again, I'm sorry if I didn't realize I made something incorrect again. Emotioness Expression (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Emotioness Expression, I'm going to ask that you stop making changes that you perceive to be corrections of grammatical errors. I know you're well-intentioned, but your history shows that this is not the area where you can make the strongest contributions to Wikipedia. The replacement of the correct propositional phrase "in voiced pauses" with the nonsensically incorrect adjective-noun "invoiced pauses" is an example. The fact that you've needed to rely on Grammarly in the past to make ill-founded corrections is another indication you're not at the level to make these changes; and your lack of care in editing quotes (including modifying the text of the United States Constitution!) is yet another. I've had to revert at least two of your edits ([11], [12]) that indicate that some of the nuances and subtleties of written text are a bit beyond your abilities. It's not that you're a bad writer, as such; just not good enough to be in a position to presume to correct other, better writers.

Could you please lay off making these "corrections", which are not your area of strength, and concentrate on contributing in other ways? Thanks. TJRC (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I just reverted a couple of changes you made to Jacksepticeye. You changed the UK spelling of a word to the US spelling. Don't do this. The subject of the article is Irish, and they use en-UK. Also, "live-stream" is fine as a compound verb, but when you need a noun, "livestream" is the way to go. PLEASE STOP trying to correct grammar and spelling in these articles. You are doing more harm than good.

And I'll second the warning given above: DO NOT USE Grammarly (or any other automatic composition aid) on Wikipedia articles! Thank you. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Emotioness Expression, here is another example of one of your edits needing to be undone because it lowered the quality of the text. There's nothing wrong with using "crash" as a noun, and it was clearer before your edit to force the sentence into using it as a verb. Referring to a plane crash as a "process" is awkward and borderline absurd. Again, please steer clear of these kinds of edits. To clarify, I don't mean only grammar corrections, but usage corrections like this as well. In sum, if you find yourself thinking "here's a better way to phrase this," please don't make the edit. I hate to be so blunt, but your judgment is not sound in that area. TJRC (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Hi Emotioness Expression! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Russell Barkley that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Here we are again, with you making what look like Grammarly-recommended edits, and marking them "minor". — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Micronation, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. And again... <sigh> — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Republican marriage, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Please don't change en-UK spellings to en-US without discussion. When are you going to stop this? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Your "improvements"

Please note that when you are editing articles to make "improvements", you are also introducing further errors, as witnessed by multiple editors reverting a lot of your recent edits. Here I have picked four articles at random, (and ignored your changing words from British English to American English):

Geography of the Philippines:

Changing "To the east of the lake is a plain that stretches westward to the Manila Bay." to "To the east of the lake is plains that stretch westward to the Manila Bay." is not an improvement.

Changing "Caloocan City is divided in two by Valenzuela City and Quezon City." to "Caloocan City is divided into by Valenzuela City and Quezon City.", for example, is not an improvement.

Changing "To the north of the Diwata Mountains at northeast Mindanao lie Siargao island and the Dinagat group of islands." to "To the north of the Diwata Mountains at northeast Mindanao lies Siargao island and the Dinagat group of islands." is not an improvement.

Plagiarism:

• Changing "short description|Using another author's work as if it was one's own original work" to "short description|Using another author's work as if it was one's original work" is not an improvement.

• Changing "Taking passages from their own previous work without adding citations (self-plagiarism)." to "Taking passages from their previous work without adding citations (self-plagiarism)." is not an improvement.

• Changing "falsely giving authorship credit over a work to a person who did not author it" to "falsely giving authorship credit overwork to a person who did not author it" is not an improvement.

John White (colonist and artist):

• Changing "Roanoke Island was not the original planned location for the colony" to "Roanoke Island was not originally planned location for the colony" is not an improvement.

Brand ambassador:

• Changing "the ambassador would be given a code like "ambassador15" that would be valid for 15% off" to "the ambassador would be given code like "ambassador15" that would be valid for 15% off" is not an improvement.

Something for you to consider. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the wordings in two of the articles that you mentioned (John White (colonist and artist) and Brand ambassador). Also, please let me change back the spelling from American English to British English. Emotioness Expression (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

This edit to Frederick Douglass is yet another example. Apart from a single word -- the correction of the misspelled "rebelled" -- none of this is an improvement. Some parts are at best neutral.

• In "From slavery to freedom", the use of "own freedom" is there to emphasize and distinguish from Murray's. Your edit loses that.
• In "Abolitionist and preacher", changing "he wanted one that was more distinctive" to "he wanted the more distinctive one" is just plain wrong. There was no the more distinctive one, and that's why as shown in the next clause, he asked Johnson to choose a more distinctive one.

Please stop this. You have a number of Wikipedia editors following after you to mop up your errors. This is time we could spend being productive. TJRC (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, this edit to The Greatest Showman:

• "Plot": introduces subject-verb disagreement: "Barnum and his troupe" is plural, so the verb was correct as the plural "perform", not the singular "perform".
• "well-known critic" is used as to correctly characterize Bennett; the a is not needed (and if it is used, which would change the sense of the sentence, a comma would be required).
• the cast list reflects the cast as credited; unless you've confirmed that listing, the introduction of the articles a and the are wrong.

Please, please, please, stop this! TJRC (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Safawi Rasid, you may be blocked from editing. Please refrain from changing spellings. You have been warned about this several times. You risk being blocked if you persist. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lyndon B. Johnson, you may be blocked from editing. You made ~23 unnecessary (e.g. serial comma) edits that introduced five real errors. PLEASE STOP USING GRAMMARLY TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA PAGES. (If you're not using Grammarly (or something like it), then JUST STOP. You're not any good at it.) — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

AND you added an unnecessary "that" to the Rocketman (film) article, too. Please stop. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Missing case of McDonald's boys (1986) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Missing case of McDonald's boys (1986). Thanks! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Spanish names of Philippine executive depts

Hi! I'm very sorry but I have reverted all your edits on Spanish translations of some Philippines executive departments such for Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of Agriculture, Department of Budget and Management, etc. Spanish is not an official language in the country though it is spoken in certain parts, so it would be an unnecessary translation for such departments. — Emperork (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I know! I just want to do it because I want to see what would have looked like if Spanish is the official language again. Emotioness Expression (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Emotioness Expression: But that's not how it works. That would be WP:ORIGINAL. — Emperork (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Concur. Also WP:NOT especially WP:NOTANARCHY. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Additional disruptive editing noted at Kingdom of Kush. Some of your edits were good but at least two of them introduced new grammar errors. I am reverting those now.

If you continue to engage in disruptive editing, your editing privileges will suspended or you will be permanently banned. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:18, 11 November 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) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Sabahan Malay

Hello, Emotioness Expression. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sabahan Malay".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Missing case of McDonald's boys (1986) (January 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chicdat was: 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:Missing case of McDonald's boys (1986) 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:Missing case of McDonald's boys (1986), 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.

🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Hello, I'm WikiHannibal. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sam Denby, 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. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. WikiHannibal (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Norge i rødt, hvitt og blått (Norway is red, white, and blue) (June 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bonadea was: 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:Norge i rødt, hvitt og blått (Norway is red, white, and blue) 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:Norge i rødt, hvitt og blått (Norway is red, white, and blue), 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.

bonadea contributions talk 18:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Missing case of McDonald's boys (1986)

Hello, Emotioness Expression. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Missing case of McDonald's boys (1986), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Norge i rødt, hvitt og blått (Norway is red, white, and blue)

Hello, Emotioness Expression. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Norge i rødt, hvitt og blått (Norway is red, white, and blue), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Norge i rødt, hvitt og blått (Norway is red, white, and blue)

Hello, Emotioness Expression. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Norge i rødt, hvitt og blått".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)