User talk:Realitytvshow

Hi Realitytvshow, In regards to the The Challenge: Invasion of the Champions page: Why not highlight who the champions are in the list of cast members, with more then just the footnote reference.WikiVirusC (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I unable to edit pages that are locked? I thought with an account you would be able to edit pages that are locked to people without an account? I was happy to get an account to edit pages that were locked and now my account is basically the same as without an account. If someone could reply to this to tell me why I can't edit locked pages that would be great.

Realitytvshow, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Realitytvshow! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Drag Race

Please do not add high/low to the pages under Contestant Progress, we have determined that "safe" is the standard for the pages following Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Oath2order (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seriously makes no sense not to have it on there. The page is so confusing without it. The table is there for the contestant progress. Not just who won and who got eliminated. It is there for everything. So no.

They violate Wikipedia's rule on Wikipedia:No original research. Please refrain from adding them. Oath2order (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, have messed up pages that make no sense, doesn't matter to me. How come every other TV show has the HIGH and the LOW's huh? How come this one is the only one that doesn't. It's just stupid.

Because we are trying to follow the standards. The pages make perfect sense. Certain queens are safe, one won the challenge, one was in the bottom 2, and one was eliminated. Oath2order (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But she always said who was high and who was low so this makes no sense. Just because you think you're right doesn't mean you're actually right.

Lemme spell it out then. The "No original research" policy states that everything must be attributable to a reliable source. Ru does not EXPLICITLY state which queens rank high, low, and just plain safe every single week. It is therefore against policy, **especially in mid-to-late season episodes** to guess as to which queens are high or low. Just because you think you're right doesn't mean you're actually right. Oath2order (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Challenge pages

While it's nice you finally got an account on Wikipedia, having an account doesn't give you free reign to edit the pages how you please. Your edits before weren't redone because you weren't logged in, it was because they don't follow the certain standards we have for elimination tables. So please, stop editing the pages how you please. Aspiring816 (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the elimination tables don't even make sense. If 1 teammate quit/got removed, the other teammate didn't quit/get removed either. Plus you don't even have an account so don't even start with me.

Reference errors on 8 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the The Challenge: Invasion of the Champions page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at The Challenge: Rivals and other articles

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks 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 request an unblock 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.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. You created this account but also appear to be using the IP address 68.190.153.14, sometimes to edit the same article. This violates our sockpuppet policy, so I'm blocking the IP for longer. This block might be lifted if we could be sure you will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

India Gants claim

My apologies, as you've pointed out, Joanie Dodds did in fact not win her cycle. However, India Gants still isn't the first contestant to have won that number of call-outs. Jourdan Miller (20) and Ann Ward (15) both had six. Gants isn't breaking any records. Trafalk09 (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that now too. However I wasn't the actual one who put it on there first. I just thought it was a good idea to have it on it, even though I haven't looked at all of the records yet.

Drag Race Season 4

There needs to be something in the lip-sync box that states who was eliminated. It was not a non-elimination. Oath2order (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was a non-elimination, because Willam was disqualified, that's not being eliminated. That table is for people who were eliminated from that certain lip sync, not people who were disqualified.

Except that Willam was technically eliminated. Disqualification and elimination are roughly the same. I'd be fine with an asterisk or whatever but it can't just be left blank. "Neither" would work. Oath2order (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not the same. Also these tables are seriously so confusing without the HIGH and the LOW's on here. There's no point that they shouldn't be on here. Every other elimination type show has the HIGH's and the LOW's on there. There's no reason why this show should not have it on here, especially when Ru specifically says which queen is in the top and the bottom.

Ru may say who is the top and bottom for the first and maybe the second episode but even then, it's going into territory that violates the policy of WP:OR.

But the HIGH and LOW is not what we're talking about. Back to the topic at hand. Why should we leave that lip sync with nothing in it? We should have something that directs the user to a footnote that states why neither of them was eliminated. Oath2order (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because neither of the bottom two was eliminated, so why should we put false information there? Willam had nothing to do with the bottom 2. That column says eliminated, not who was sent home.

Except I'm saying it should look something like this:

Episode	Contestants			Song	Eliminated
8	Phi Phi O'Hara	vs.	Sharon Needles	"It's Raining Men (The Sequel)" (Martha Wash & RuPaul)	None^[a]

^ Neither contestant was eliminated due to another being disqualified.

I don't see the problem with this. Oath2order (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like Willam's disqualification has nothing to do with either one of them not getting eliminated.

That doesn't answer the question. Why should there not be something in the footnotes explaining that a contestant was disqualified? Oath2order (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's clearly stated in the contestant's progress table right above it. This table is about the lip syncs and who lost, not about who was disqualified outside of the lip sync.

I feel like the only reason you want to remove this is because you're some massive fan of Willam but I'm not gonna continue arguing about it. Oath2order (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even a massive Willam fan, it's just common sense and it looks like you have none.

That's just rude.

Why are you adding the Notes sections back to pages? Oath2order (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because everyone has been ruining these pages. It was fine before. The notes section was perfect. The episodes section was perfect. The HIGH and LOW on the page makes sense to have on, now we have all these pages looking like garbage. Like the color you picked for the people who were in the top and bottom literally look white, no one likes the page without the highs and lows.

Except as I said before, the HIGH and LOW violates Wikipedia policy. If you want a different color, we can talk about that but the issue is the HIGH and LOW is against policy. I know you're going to quote other show pages that use those, but that's irrelevant as those show pages are violating the policy unless it's explicitly stated in each and every case who is high and low, which is not the case here.

You may think they look like garbage, but I think they're fine. Oath2order (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RuPaul's Drag Race Season 9

Please stop reverting and disrupting the page, I have stated many times in the 'View history' section that the episode name must remain "TBA" unless a reference is provided (this also goes for everything else on the page, even though the season has been announced and is set to air within 2 weeks, references are still required) which you and others fail to do. This is a warning as I do not wish to get into an edit war, however, you will be reported if you continue. Thank you. MSMRHurricane (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Top Model has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. Linguist ^talk|contribs 23:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited America's Next Top Model (cycle 13), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oceanside. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RuPaul's Drag Race

I understand you've only been editing since January, and might not be familiar with all the myriad policies and guidelines. That's OK; we all have a learning curve. Just FYI, we don't make major changes to long-stable charts, like unilaterally eliminating a column, without talk-page discussion, and we certainly don't do it across a range of articles without discussion. Columns will get filled; I and other editors have added several real names, with reliable-source citations, just today. There's no deadline for filling out the columns. Thank you for understanding, and I'm glad I was able to speak with you before more disruption took place. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. livelikemusic talk! 02:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting; the Manual of Style requires it to be white. livelikemusic talk! 02:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. livelikemusic talk! 02:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you're only changing it one page out of 11 pages. So obviously it is fine the way it is.

Because changing it on the newest page is easiest; to go and change 8+ other pages is a longer process. It's the manual of style for Wikipedia, which is what we must follow. And just because another page does it does not mean it is correct; that's like saying if one person smashes a car's window, it's okay for everyone else to do so, as well. Also, please remember to sign your posts when you post on a talk page. livelikemusic talk! 02:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Just because you think that the high and low should return doesn't mean that it should. There has been a consensus to remove those from the pages, please stop adding it back. Oath2order (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to have them off of the page, just because you think they shouldn't be there doesn't mean anything. There has not been a consensus to remove them either since everyone keep adding them back to it. So how about you stop and get off of my page.

Having them there violates Wiki policy. I will report you for disruptive editing if you continue to re-add them. Consensus at the time of discussion was to remove them. If you want to add them back please discuss it on a talk page. Oath2order (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss it on which talk page?

Season 9 would probably be the best. Oath2order (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drag Race season edits

Please stop adding HIGH and LOW to the contestant tables on RuPaul's Drag Race. It is against wiki policy. If you wish to voice your opinion about the blue/pink colours then please head on over to the discussion on the season 9 talk page. Leave the tables alone as previously asked until the discussion is concluded. Brocicle (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even been adding them....

Your edit history on the pages show otherwise. You have been warned four times in the past about this. Brocicle (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been doing that recently though. Like seriously stop.

My apologies, I clicked on the wrong talk page through the edit history tab as yours was directly below the one I meant to click on from the season 5 page. Disregard this, sorry again. Brocicle (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

Why have you removed the citation from the contestant's progress table on the season 9 page? We all agreed Carson Kressley's articles were an accurate source for citation, without the citation we can't have highs and lows? And why have you decided to remove "OUT" for "REM.", we don't use this in any of the other contestant progress tables. Even if you want to keep REM. for Removed, would it not just be "REM" like ELIM for eliminated... No punctuation? Sorry if I come across as rude, I know we all want the same thing here, but if we add Highs and Lows then we need citation. and we all can't keep fighting over the contestant's performances you know? If we have citation it stops original research/opinions etc. Sorry again if I come across as rude and I'm sorry for the long paragraph. I just want all us editors on the same page! So that we keep highs and lows once and for all Seanmurpha (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice to all registered editors at RuPaul's Drag Race and Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race this year (2017) that an RfC on sourcing and citing has begun at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

RuPaul's Drag Race: All Stars (season 2)

added links pointing to Step It Up and If I Were Your Woman

RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9)

added a link pointing to Madonna

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited RuPaul's Drag Race (season 9), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Finally. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on CM Punk Bio

As you are a recent editor on The Challenge: Champs vs. Pros could you leave a comment and vote on the information we will be using for CM Punk professional experience. Click here to see survey --> CM Punk Bio WikiVirusC (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Season 1 - Kauai, Hawaii

Hello Realitytvshow,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Season 1 - Kauai, Hawaii for deletion, because it doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Elliot321 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

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 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. Linguist ^talk|contribs 21:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Hey I was in the middle of creating table for all the seasons of Ink Master and you immediately revert it. Why are you complaining about it? There's nothing wrong with it. Could you please refrain yourself.107.77.216.128 (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you are not the administrator. Secondly, somebody was in the middle of expanding the earlier seasons and I am trying to pick up where the user left off. Stop it with your edit war.107.77.216.128 (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Hello, I'm Nordic Nightfury. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to Ink Master (season 9). While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Nördic Nightfury 09:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you're not the boss and you don't control things. I was in the middle of updating the page and you just went ahead and complain. First off, the elimination table bills all the artists who are credited as on the show instead of their full names. Like Nordic Nightfury said, please moderate yourself and everyone is welcome to edit.Unicornaholic243 (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about you stop with your disruptive edits. Your edits suck so that's why I'm changing them back. They are referred to by their whole name. Even their whole name is on the ink master website itself. So how about you stop. Also you're not even a real account so I'm not going to listen to an account that's not an actual account. Now get off of my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitytvshow (talk • contribs) 09:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am warning you not to engage in an edit war.Unicornaholic243 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay cool? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B10D:F86F:14DD:79F5:276B:ECB8 (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using different IPs to childishly revert edits to have an edit war when you are wrong and have 0 sources

Your recent editing history at Real World: Ex-Plosion 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 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.
STOP violating wikipedia rules and skirting around rules by reverting your edits with different IPs. Ashley asked for a vote. She didn't have to obey the vote. She chose to. This means she left on her own. The show producer says the same. You have a history of constant edit warring. You use different IPs. You are childish. This is your last warning. The voluntarily leave is properly cited. Do not touch the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdfakjdfjklklasdf (talk • contribs) 19:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even editing the real world pages at the moment. That's the least of my worries right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitytvshow (talk • contribs) 19:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're lying. Again. Your IP's edit history shows edits for the same titles as you. Grow the hell up and find a new hobby besides Wikipedia. Sdfakjdfjklklasdf (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month 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 request an unblock 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. Acroterion (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off we were trying to get to a conclusion and then you decided to block me, so how exactly is that fair. You said if we could come to a consensus we wouldn't be blocked? Thanks.

You abused ANI to offer excuses for edit-warring, and your attempt at using the talkpage came rather late. You are welcome to compose an unblock request that constructively addresses your conduct. You have little excuse for edit-warring, you've been blocked for it before and should know better. Acroterion (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I posted the consensus before I was blocked so thanks boo for blocking me. Really doesn't hurt me at all so it was pointless.

Yes, I know, you did that while I was reviewing everybody's editing records and finding no mitigating circumstances on either side.You should have been talking long before I suggested it. If you can't acknowledge your behavior there's nothing more to be said here. In particular, I note that you - again - appeared to be using logged-out IP edits, which moved me into blocking you. Acroterion (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been logging out of my account because I don't even know my password for my account so I obviously can't do that. So get your facts straight. I'm over this conversation now bye.

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Starbucks6789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked you based on evidence presented at ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Neither contestant was eliminated due to another being disqualified.

[a]