User talk:Estar8806/Archive 1

February 2020
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Schenectady, New York has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

December 2022
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * My bad. Thank you for informing me of my error. Despite the typical rules I was unable to move the page as it said the title for the requested page already existed. I sincerely apologize. Estar8806 (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

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. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Prince George, Duke of Kent. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh thank you! Just so you know if you’re really upset about synthesis, maybe you should go through all the pages about the royal family and remove their titles and styles sections because almost none of it is sourced! Also, maybe try the tag, it’s really cool! Estar8806 (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

January 2023
On Bernhard Margrave of Baden: Convention is to use in Wikipedia the Name (or title or style or whatever) that is used by most sources. If you can provide sources with comma or have other points, please use the section I started in the talk page. To be clear: My edits are NOT vandalism. -- Theoreticalmawi (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit war
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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Canterbury Tail talk 12:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Canterbury Tail - Oh my, thank you for letting me know! I was not completely familiar with the full policy apart from the three-revert rule, which I was trying to avoid. I left a message on the other users talk page to hopefully resolve the issue there, rather than start an edit war (which based on my miscounting, I appear to have already done). My apologies! Estar8806 (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion nomination process
Hi Estar8806. When listing redirects at RfD, try to follow the instructions there (WP:RFDHOWTO). In particular for your recent nomination Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 26 you didn't place the tag on the redirect, or notify the creator. Don't worry for this one, I've done it now. A7V2 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @A7V2.Thank you! I was trying to look for instructions, hoping they would be on the page. I've been diving into RMs recently, so I thought an RfD would be a good thing to try. Thank you for providing with with the instructions and correcting my error! Estar8806 (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Message left w/o heading
The reason I left a message if it was for the bears because it was the old coaching staff 67.188.18.232 (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Niskayuna, New York, you may be blocked from editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood. ''You've been warned several times about this on your talk page. Please heed these warnings. Citations should explicitly support the content and all content should be cited.'' Celia Homeford (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the warning. My actions were not maliciously intended. I sincerely apologize Estar8806 (talk) 13:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Duchess of Kent
With regard to your edit here, I agree with you that the dukedom of Kent is a noble title, but the substantive title is held by the Duke of Kent, whereas "Duchess of Kent" is used as a courtesy title by the wife of the Duke of Kent, as you know. As a result, the use of "{{Infobox nobility title" is most suitable on the article entitled Duke of Kent, where it has always been used to provide various details related to the title's creation and holder. Since the "Duchess of Kent" article relates to wives using the title as a mere courtesy title, it does not seem completely appropriate to use an infobox that is designed for the substantive title and its holder. Under the circumstances, I feel that it is more suitable to keep using the "Infobox official post" that was being used here until you changed it, because that gives readers a variety of additional details that do not appear in the "{{Infobox nobility title". Anyone who wants to know more about the substantive title can easily go to the Duke of Kent article, which has all of that info. I certainly appreciate your point about the dukedom of Kent being a noble title and not a post, but in this particular case, I hope that you will please consider reversing your edit. If not, then perhaps a discussion should be held on the Talk page. I'm sure that you are acting with the very best of intentions, but since the change is not uncontentious, then it might be best if we ensure that a consensus of other editors agrees with the change. This should also be kept in mind with respect to other articles that you recently changed, including your edit here on the Duchess of Cornwall article. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. -- Blairall (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Blairall
 * First, I would like to thank you for not simply reverting my edits which you disagree with, and rather opening up discussion about them. That is something most people will not do and more should.
 * Second, I fully understand your point on the title of Duchess being by courtesy, while the Duke is the actual holder of the title. And I agree that some of the information was lost, such as the date from which the holder gained the title, or the fact that the title is held by marriage to the Duke.
 * However, I think that on the first point, finding the date from which Katharine, for example, became Duchess of Kent, then it can be found elsewhere in the article. It's also not mentioned in the infobox for Duke of Kent, when the present Duke gained the title, but is mentioned elsewhere in the article (and could be added to the lead). The second piece of information being lost is the fact that it is held by marriage to the Duke. This is mentioned in the very first sentence, "Duchess of Kent is the principal courtesy title used by the wife of the Duke of Kent". Of course, I'm not certain of this is the information you were considered with the loss of, but I presume it must be. The changes I made were in-line with the prior formatting on Duchess of Edinburgh, which has been as is for some time.
 * As I said earlier, I completely understand where you're coming from and if you feel that this is a matter which should be opened up for discussion with other editors, feel free. But I feel that this shouldn't be that contentious of an issue and we should be able to resolve it ourselves.
 * Again, thank you for your consideration in being open to conversation rather than just reverting my edits, Estar8806 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain things fully. I agree that most info that was in the previous infobox can be found elsewhere in the article. I don't have a strong objection to the change, so there is no need to revert it, and we can leave the edit that you made. Best regards to you. -- Blairall (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to WP:CIII
Hello. Just in case you missed it, there's a task force up at WP:CIII which you may be interested in. There is, of course, no obligation to participate, but if you do, it is very much appreciated.

Best wishes, Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Will do. I hadn't heard of it, so thank you for the invitation! Estar8806 (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

FM-designate
Thanks for fixing galling errors on Humza Yousaf expected start date as FM. 2A02:C7C:D009:6900:69D4:A819:2A5F:A2C0 (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ferdinand II of Spain


A tag has been placed on Ferdinand II of Spain requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

King Ethan?
Hi Estar8806, I stumbled upon your edits and noticed that you've made some edit summaries with "King Ethan". As far as Wikipedia can tell me, there hasn't been a king with that name. Out of curiosity, what am I missing? Is that an inside joke or something? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @User:Soetermans Nope. I genuinely have no idea how that came to be. As I said while reverting my edits, it was a mistaken use of twinkle. In addition, I have no idea where the edit summary came from. Estar8806 (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's very weird! King Ethan, wonder where that comes from... Ghost King in the machine? Perhaps a discussion at WT:TWINKLE is a good idea. I'll try to start one if I find the time. Anyway, thanks for your contributions and happy editing! soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Soetermans I'm sure that isn't necessary. I'm sure I must've done something on my end without realizing. The only fault of twinkle was being too quick for me to stop before it delinked too many articles. I'm already terribly embarrassed and reverted my edits as fast as I could, I think it'd be best to just call this a case of editor's stupidity. Estar8806 (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe what happened is I probably clicked the twinkle "reason" line instead of the search bar. Estar8806 (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

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)
 * 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: Spicy (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC) Spicy (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.