User talk:StarkGaryen

February 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Robin DiAngelo have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Robin DiAngelo was changed by StarkGaryen (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.89641 on 2021-02-25T16:36:58+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Hello, I'm HMSLavender. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to March 4 Trump—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 05:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tariq Nasheed. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Seoltoir22 (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021: Reverted POV editing and no edit summaries

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Quisqualis (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Battle of Sean, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason.

Specifically WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, we don't use "Decisive" in infoboxes. FDW777 (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Aymeric Laporte 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. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Noam Chomsky have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Noam Chomsky was changed by StarkGaryen (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.899046 on 2021-05-13T10:38:52+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Izno (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to United States, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 22:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Curse of Tippecanoe, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 22:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 2010 United States House of Representatives elections. General Ization ^Talk 22:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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, as you did at Randa Jarrar, you may be blocked from editing. X5163x (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021: Please use an edit summary to help other editors understand your edits

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. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!--Quisqualis (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Always cite a source for changes to an article's content Suggestion

Hello, I'm Quisqualis. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Quisqualis (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United States

Are you intentionally being disruptive? The paragraph you are repeatedly editing is in the lede; it summarizes the body. The body makes clear that the use of capital punishment makes the US the object of criticism. See section "Law enforcement and crime." That is why your removal of that element from the lede (twice) was reverted. At this time that section does not state that police brutality is a cause of criticism of the United States, so it should not be added to that sentence of the lede stating that it is. Please leave that paragraph alone and move on to something else. General Ization ^Talk 03:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

buddy, did you seriously just say that capital punishment, something a majority of Americans agree with, and which gets wide support when applied to criminals like Alfred Bourgeios or Lisa Monrtgomery is less popular/more of a problem than the widely publicized and continuous police brutality that literally led to riots last year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarkGaryen (talk • contribs) 04:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Buddy," articles in the encyclopedia are based on information reported and cited in reliable sources, not on what you or I believe or think we know. If you would like to rewrite the entire article, citing sources to reflect updated information about why the United States is being criticized today, have at it. But don't selectively edit the lede paragraph of an article to reflect your world view, without providing citations to support it. That's not how we do things here. General Ization ^Talk 04:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021: Please stop your POV editing immediately

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Quisqualis (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DMacks (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2020 United States presidential election. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Hello, I'm Dhtwiki. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to New York (state) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Collin County, Texas. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metrication opposition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Traditionalism. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

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, as you did at Whigs (British political party), you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

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, as you did at Big lie, you may be blocked from editing.

Here's the diff: [1]. Generalrelative (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

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, as you did at Michael Shellenberger, you may be blocked from editing. —Hobomok (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing, including editing without providing sources, or even contrary to cited sources, and editing which is clearly intended to promote a point of view. Because previous short-term blocks have had no effect, this one is for a significantly longer term, in the hope that it will prompt you to take notice. However, it is still short in proportion to the time over which you have been editing disruptively, and if you still continue in the same way you may well be blocked indefinitely. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. JBW (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StarkGaryen, your month-long block has ended, and you're right back to making unsourced controversial edits to political articles. I've reverted your edits to Defund the police and Abolish ICE for lack of sources. If you keep at this, there's really nowhere to go from here but an indefinite block. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing figures without updating sources

Hello, I'm Ohnoitsjamie. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tf? you literally have no clue about the area of Dubai, the city of Dubai or the emirate. you call actual links and facts 'poor links' but Are ignorant and foolish enough to put the emirate of Dubai's area as Dubai city's size? go get a job lmao wikipedia is clearly too hard for you. you don't even know Dubai city's size and you're lecturing me. StarkGaryen (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further personal attacks will also result in a block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

then maybe stop vandalising the page? there's several good links cited, the area checks out with the actual urban area of Dubai City proper and now the square mile issue has also been resolved. leave the page as it is ffs there's literally no good reason whatsoever @Ohnoitsjamie and even if you wanna, then atleast use the talk page for it smh StarkGaryen (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOR, your own calculations do not qualify as reliable sources. If you'd like to keep editing Wikipedia, I suggest you stop. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

these aren't my own calculations lmao ik the rules regarding personal work very well. this is a clear citation of google maps which fits in with the conventional definition of Dubai. furthermore @Ohnoitsjamie, the links you cite are pretty poor when you literally edit the area to be either 4114 km2 which is the size of the emirate, not the city, or when you cite 35 km2, which is the size of the tiny old city district. StarkGaryen (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've established that in searching for a source I mistakenly applied one that was for the emirate vs the city. Until we find a suitable reliable source (e.g., an WP:RS and not your own calculation from a map tool), that parameter should be left empty. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you realise......that way, there's not a single 'source' other than those by people (like me) who actually bother to work to find it? StarkGaryen (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grands Prix notes

We use numbers not notes per the practice. Island92 (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92 yes but the numbers are linking incorrectly so????? click on 1 and you'll see that it takes the user to the first link which is in quali, not in sprint StarkGaryen (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed. Island92 (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks StarkGaryen (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanction notification: reupped

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wait what why?? StarkGaryen (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you above, If you keep [making unsourced controversial edits to political articles], there's really nowhere to go from here but an indefinite block. Today, you added to Recession, currently an article under great political scrutiny, the unsourced claim that the United States is amidst a recession. While I was debating whether to block you or just warn you for that, you made this incivil politically charged comment on the article's talkpage, which made up my mind for me. This is an indefinite block. The first month of the block is an arbitration enforcement block under the American Politics discretionary sanctions, which you were reminded of just two weeks ago. See the template below that explains that aspect of the block. (After a month, things switch to the regular rules for appeals.)

AE block template

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

new account time

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

StarkGaryen (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]