User talk:Estar8806

undid revision

hi. there was a reason in the edit summary. i've restored my edit! 173.175.200.238 (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

nope! not an edit war. i think the other editor just didn't see my edit note before reverting or i didn't explain it well enough. 173.175.200.238 (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It is an edit war, you violated the 3RR rule. Estar8806 (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

twice. 173.175.200.238 (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You deleted the same content 3 times. It will be within the 3RR rule if you revert it again. Estar8806 (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

please stop automatically reverting my edits. i am removing non-notable material in an attempt to show, without hiding them behind a menu, the major awards. 173.175.200.238 (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

That is your opinion. I you restore your edit again I will have to report you to the admin notice board for edit warring. Estar8806 (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

After the second edit by 173.175.200.238 explaining that the removal was of non-noteworthy awards and comparing the change in depth, I actually agree that yes, removing that content is reasonable as the user mentioned in the comment above, in the intial removal it was just not explained very well (single word "fluff" was a bit abstract). Raladic (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Very well, thank you. I would still caution the same editor in the future to pay attention to 3RR, however. Estar8806 (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

thank you, and sorry. it was a bit of a terse edit note 173.175.200.238 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@Raladic: Yeah but a full deletion is not necessary but rather the best solution is to categorically summarize the citations and keep them. The result would be one small paragraph or even a sentence. That wouldn't destroy notability. You could write something like "The newspaper received X awards or more than 30 awards for X Y Z. The main award winning journalists have been X Y and Z."

Also the IP editor said "clearing my talk page". You do not have a talk page whatsoever. Make an account. — Smuckola(talk) 00:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Question from Eyang99 (05:18, 24 April 2023)

Hi, I'm trying to edit some terms related to my research. I'm confused why the research work gets removed after the edition. And if I like to add my research works for a particular term such as digital phenotyping, how can I operate it more appropriately? Thanks for the support! --Eyang99 (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello there Eyang99. Looking at your contributions one of the complaints by the editors who've reverted you're work is that it is WP:CITESPAM, which states "Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes, or references. Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor.". So in short, promoting research you've conducted by yourself and adding it to Wikipedia is a violation of that policy.

I would also advise you to check out the three most important policies we have here: WP:Neutral point of view, WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability. And if all else fails, you can always start a discussion on the talk page of the editor who reverted your edits to discuss and resolve the situation with them, or on the talk page of the article for wider changes that should have WP:Consensus. If you have any more questions, don't be afraid to ask. Happy editing! Estar8806 (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Spicy (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Spicy (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Estar8806. After reviewing your request, I have temporarily enabled rollback on your account until 2023-06-05. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 23:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)