User talk:Esther Kings

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, as you did at Talk:Ichafu (headdress), 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do not delete or alter legitimate talk page comments from other editors, as you did at Talk:Ichafu (headdress). Such edits are disruptive and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Please do not use LLMs or other AI tools to engage in discussion with other editors. In particular this comment bears several tell-tale signs of LLM use. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn`t realize that using an AI assistant to check errors in my writings and structure for faster communication was against the rules. I appreciate your corrections as I'm still new here and learning how things work.

I spent two days manually reading the books I needed for the article Improvement, like Basden, Ndu-Udeji,etc.) to provide to meet up all concerns regarding the article which has become increasingly demanding for me. The facts are mine. I have physical and digital copies of the sources to present if needed. Esther Kings (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ichafu (headdress) (2nd nomination) seem to rather forcefully disagree, identifying several sources whose inclusion appears to only be explainable as the hallucination of an AI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ichafu (headdress), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ichafu (headdress) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

An article you created; Origin of Oga, has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to participate in the discussion here at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Origin_of_Oga

@Esther Kings Esther Kings (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I’m requesting reconsideration of the block. On reading the Wikipedia rules after the block notification I received, I now understand that having two accounts without properly disclosing it according to Wikipedia guidelines is not allowed. The appearance of two accounts is as a result of technical mistakes due to using both mobile and laptop without maintaining a single logged in account, not an intention to mislead or disrupt. I also want to note that the involvement of the both accounts arose from me attempting to improve the article in good faith and withdrawal due to discovery of the disputed material present in the article history prior to edits. A revision of the edit history would show that I had no intent to mislead or influence the consensus because I’m not the original author of the disputed material. Regardless, I’ve now learnt that involvement with more than one account is inappropriate and against the rules. I’m committed to using one account henceforth and going through Wikipedia rules to avoid similar mistakes if my request is considered. Thanks

Decline reason:

I think you should take the standard offer and re-apply in six months time with no more abuse of multiple accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

.Esther Kings (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

i'd be more impressed with this if:

you hadn't dismissed the accusations of sockpuppetry in the AFD

your first article wasn't seeking help with a draft, your second wasn't to an AFD and your 4-5 expertly appealing to ANI

that AFD wasn't plagued by brigade votes supporting your position. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Not impressed with this either, but I fixed the unblock template. Maybe there's someone more inclined to unblock than I am.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)