User talk:Streetr4
Add topicWelcome!
[edit]{{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking 
or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.|
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
|
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous
|
Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
June 2026
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Chaim Peri, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Augmented Seventh (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- Which part of the edit was against the MOS? The dates don't seem to violate MOS:DATEFORMAT and I removed curly quotations. Streetr4 (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
Rollback granted
[edit]
Hi Streetr4. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:
- Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
- Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits. For more information about when rollback is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Rollback § When to use rollback.
- Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the permission will be revoked.
- Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!
I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, and feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate use of rollback. If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin) and Wikipedia:Rollback. Good luck and thanks! ASUKITE 15:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll make sure I use it wisely. Streetr4 (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thank you for your diligent work fighting vandalism! :) tony 00:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC) |
- Thank you! Your tool makes it a lot easier :) Streetr4 (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
You've got mail!
[edit]
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
SarahStanky (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
FYI: Burden
[edit]A heads-up, and I'm only mentioning it because you mentioned I would strongly disagree. I would say the responsibility lies on the person who removed the content to provide a reason why; which is what an edit summary is for
: if we restore information (even by reverting), we are responsible for making sure it's sourced.
Put another way: when we revert content removal, we need to be able to defend the content we are readding as if we were the ones who wrote it in the first place. This idea is long-established and is codified in policy: WP:BURDEN. Specifically the bold bit, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material
.
In general when someone unexplainedly blanks it can be indistinguishable from vandalism, but in certain cases (like removing a poorly-sourced date of birth) we typically don't revert unless we plan on adding a better source.
This trips up very nearly everyone who gets into recent changes patrolling. It tripped me up initially too. Just a heads-up :) tony 22:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- To add to the above, if reverting content removal without an edit summary was always appropriate, we could do it with a bot. We don't, because any edit, regardless of whether it has an edit summary, needs assessing against policy. It isn't uncommon to see edits by newcomers with no edit summary removing all sorts of inappropriate content - anything from simple vandalism to severe WP:BLP violations. By reverting this sort of thing, you aren't just restoring inappropriate content, you are making it much less likely to be checked by anyone else, since the edit history will show what looks like a revert by an experienced contributor. Check first, and only revert if you are confident you aren't reverting a legitimate edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah you both make fair points. I honestly didn't realize that it was over the source and I thought it was just the editors personal preference. I also didn't know IMDb was user-generated until recently. Thanks to both of you for giving me good criticism. Streetr4 (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)