User talk:Starbucks6789

Hello, Starbucks6789, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

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. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 15:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content[edit]

Hello, I'm Oath2order. I noticed that you recently removed some content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Oath2order (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content 2[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Oath2order (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid table widths[edit]

Please stop introducing invalid table widths as you have done at Bad Girls Club (season 13), Bad Girls Club (season 14) and Bad Girls Club (season 15).[1][2][3][4][5][6] The width of the table has to be the sum of the individual column widths, in this case the width of the "Bad Girl" column plus the 10 season columns. 9 + (10 x 8) = 89, not 93. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content[edit]

Please stop removing the Miss Congeniality information from RuPaul's All Stars Drag Race (season 1). Discuss whether the information should be on the talk page. Do not keep removing as it will continue to be reversed. Thank you. Oath2order (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I never got your message on here at all. I will stop now. I just don't see the need for it to be on there, it makes no sense.

Discussion[edit]

Please discuss the changes to Drag Race season 4 on the talk page. Oath2order (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the changes to Drag Race season 4 on the talk page. Oath2order (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Chase (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But there's literally so much stuff I've been saying on the talk page on RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars Season 2, so if you have something to say to me or if you're confused about something, look on the talk page and see what I and some other people wrote on there about the format of the page. Thanks.

Your recent editing history at RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 2) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Chase (talk) 03:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all the discussions on the talk page and none of the discussions are talking about what I have changed. I have made zero false changes. Those are other editors. I have also discussed on the talked page and have not heard from you. If you do not reply in 24 hours on there, I will make the necesarry changes. Chase (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you are aware, you are about to violate the rule above again in two separate occasions.. Even if the information is INCORRECT, you should not revert more than the rule provides. Let someone else revert it. and if no one reverts it after 24 hours, you may do so. I'm just trying to save you from getting blocked. Thanks, Chase (talk) 04:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm deleting the wrong information. What is wrong about that. If someone is making incorrect summaries that never even aired, why would I not delete it?

I understand that it is frustrating, I have had similiar issues as well, but you can still be blocked for reverting the incorrect information, especially without talking about it to the specific users. The best solution and I will do it myself, is request semi-protect on the page to keep IPs from making edits. Chase (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry about all of this. I'm going to bed now so goodnight :)

MISS Congeniality[edit]

Stop removing this from the All Stars pages. Oath2order (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Chase (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case[edit]

Wikipedia uses sentence case for titles. This means that in the "Duration of cast" table at Bad Girls Club (season 16), "episodes" should not be capitalised. I fixed that in this edit and you should not have reintroduced that error. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

Your recent editing history at Bad Girls Club (season 16) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Also adding unreferenced info, persistent re-addition of unverified info, and giving off a distinct odor of footwear. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Starbucks6789 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: ). Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CCamp2013. I noticed that you made a change to an article, RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 2), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chase (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent edits[edit]

Please stop reverting my edits as in this case [7] on the The Bachelor (season 21) without continuing the discussion that was started on the talk page. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RuPaul's Drag Race (season 5)[edit]

Your recent editing history at RuPaul's Drag Race (season 5) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Lauralimilein (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block warning[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsajlksdlkjaslkjfa (talk • contribs) 00:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Starbucks6789 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16584 was submitted on Sep 23, 2016 21:24:46. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Starbucks6789. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Starbucks6789, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

VietPride10 (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Starbucks6789. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]