User talk:Thinkerbell22

Welcome!

Hello, Thinkerbell22, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 18:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of food names

Food names do not take initial capitals. For example, it's correct to talk about ackee and saltfish; calling it Ackee and Saltfish is incorrect. (The only exception is when a particular word in a food name is a person's or place's name, as in oysters Rockefeller). Please be mindful of this in future edits. Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pepper Shrimp (July 18)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please add additional reliable sources that not only establish the recipe for the dish but also its notability. I think you're very close to this being acceptable, considering the link at the start of this draft and the cited article.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pepper Shrimp and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Pbritti (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources sited in the article are of reliable and notable sources. The sources are from credible news agencies and journalists in the Caribbean. I will definitely research more to add additional in-depth content and sources to the draft. Thinkerbell22 (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thinkerbell22! Having an article draft 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! Pbritti (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Junkanoo

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Junkanoo, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources can be added, however why is there an article with information that also lacks reliability but is protected? All the early Pioneers of Hip Hop were migrants and children of migrants but the article made no mention of this. Additionally the article is discriminatory in nature, filled with personal agenda or removing the Caribbean influences on Hip, while downplaying the creators contribution to hip hop. Please have this fixed Thinkerbell22 (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting and/or changing parts of the article you disagree with so it doesn't match the sourcing we do have is plainly against Wikipedia's content policies. MrOllie (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about what i disagree with, its about correcting the information that lacks credibility yet is protected. Sources don't meet the standards of Wikipedia citations, yet each time someone try to correct it or add to it in order to improve the information, it undone Thinkerbell22 (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting parts of the article and adding unsourced text in this way is vandalism. If you continue I expect you'll get blocked. MrOllie (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, i will proceed as recommended Thinkerbell22 (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brown stew chicken

Please read WP:NOTRECIPEBOOK. It is not appropriate to put cooking instructions into Wikipedia articles. Also please be aware that you are still overcapitalising food names. Unless one of the words in the name of the food (like oysters Rockefeller) is a person's or place's name, the food name should not be capitalised. Please read MOS:CAPS. Thanks for your attention. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please outline the promotional material because my edits were objective in nature Thinkerbell22 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of your recent edits appear to be to erase every country that isn't Jamaica and claim every dish for Jamaica. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So that's your idea of promotion? Have you done your research to see if any information that i added is incorrect? As long as the information added is correct isnt that what's important? Thinkerbell22 (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing my edits because of your personal feeling with no regard as to whether the edits are factual Thinkerbell22 (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the references. The Guardian reference says "A classic recipe across the Caribbean" and you keep altering articles to make them exclusively about Jamaica. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerk is a classic recipe enjoyed across the Caribbean, does that mean that jerk isnt from a specific country? I provided additional reference to show the distinction in the 2 dishes since they are different. Not to mention that the person highlighted in the guardian is a Jamaican showcasing her country food. Thinkerbell22 (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Thinkerbell22 (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You have made 4 edits to restore your personal version in the last two hours. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same Guardian that said its a Jamaican meal, or have you read the Jamaican observer too? You mention about undoing an edit with a 3 revert rule, but shouldnt you take that into consideration. The information is clear but it seems as though your feelings are personal Thinkerbell22 (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 15 September 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).

Thinkerbell22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I started editing on Wikipedia with the aim to improve the accuracy of information posted on the site. I have been corrected a few times because i am new and is just getting the hang of it. I have taken recommendation from each corrections and have implemented them accordingly. I feel unjustly blocked being that each article that i have ever edited, i have added valid sources. Except once which i think was the first edit made and corrected it after being informed. I have been following Wikipedia citation guidelines, including for this recent article that i have edited titled "brown stew chicken". I provided the evidence stating that the dish is in fact a dish of a specific country, however, highlighted that the name is also sometimes informally used interchangeable for another dish that's popular in the Caribbean. In conclusion, they are two different dishes. I was accused of editing solely on topics relating to Jamaica, however, I edited topics that i am Knowledgeable on with the aim of moving to other topics and writing articles. I didn't know that this was something i couldn't do, because all the information added are cited with credible sources. I would love to continue editing on Wikipedia, and regardless of my reasons for indulging in an edit war, its not a valid one and could have been prevented. Moving forward, i will thoroughly follow Wikipedia guidelines for every edits and situations. I will also spend the additional time to familiarize myself with all the do's and don't in order to make more informed and better editing decisions. I hope that this decision may be reconsidered, and thank you for your consideration on this issue and the time taken to rectify this matter Thinkerbell22 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please tell us in a new request what steps you will take to avoid edit warring and how you will work through disputes with your edits. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 16 September 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.

I've reformatted your unblock request so that it will actually show up on a list of users requesting an unblock (you added extraneous mark-up). I've also removed the multiple unblock requests. You are not permitted to have more than one unblock request at a time.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Pepper Shrimp

Hello, Thinkerbell22. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Pepper Shrimp, 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) 19:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Pepper Shrimp

Hello, Thinkerbell22. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Pepper Shrimp".

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. When 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!} 18:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]